A study was carried out to reconcile between the "Equisitionist" and the "Nativist" approaches in the emotional domain. It was hypothesized that in the verbal domain, the three general and abstract cognitive dimensions of the "Equisitionists" would prevail, while in the nonverbal domain, the main components are the seven specific "basic" emotions of the "Nativists". Resident students (202) assessed the extent to which 104 photographs of facial expressions, and 148 words signifying emotional states were close to their own momentary emotional state. Data were analyzed by a Nonparametric Multidimensional Profile statistic. It was found that the assessments of both verbal and nonverbal items were made along bipolar dimensions that are in accord with a Nativist genetic approach. Results support Darwin's claim that each of the basic emotions is a bipolar entity. Two assumed basic emotions - Happiness and Sorrow were not found to be independent of each other, but are opposing poles of the same emotional continuum._____________________________
** A somewhat abbreviated and non-professional translation of the first draft of the thesis (1978) available for down-load (230kb as text at:
http://www.etext.org/Psychology/Shalif/emotion1
or as multi-page HTML tagged at:
http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy/diserta1.htm , or
http://www.shalif.com/psychology/diserta1.htm
or
will be sent via E-Mail to the one who have failed the download and will ask for it by E-mail.
(2) Address all correspondence to Dr. Ilan Shalif - E-mail - mailto:ilan@shalif.com
-----------------------------
There has been a long and heated controversy between ancient, as well as more recent, philosophers about the basic components of the universe, of the human being and of human emotions. This controversy is also prevalent between psychologists.
Some contemporary scientists follow the ideas of Spinoza (1677/1955)and later De Rivera (1977). They espouse the Equisitionist approach to human nature, and emphasize the importance of learning over heredity. They usually put forward parsimonious cognitive models for the various domains of human life - including the emotional domain.
Spinoza and De Rivera claimed that the following concepts: a) Persistence (or striving) b) Attainment and c) Necessity, are related to the main aspects of emotional life. From these concepts they derived the emotional dimensions of 1) Desire 2) Pleasure and 3) Pain. Even though none of the modern scientists of this trend adhere exactly to the above variables, they still claim that there are some three components with abstract content that are the main essence of emotion.
The bulk of modern studies that assume dimensionality of emotional phenomena were carried out using the Semantic Differential Technique of Osgood (1969) and show nearly the same trinity:
I. Evaluation (or Pleasantness - Unpleasantness), which parallels Spinoza's Attainment (b) and Pleasure (2);
II. Activation (or Attentional Activity), which parallels Spinoza's Persistence (Striving) (a) and Desire (1);
III. Potency (or Intensity, or Control), which to some extent parallel Spinoza's Necessity (c) and Pain (3).
Osgood (1969), and Ekman & Friesen (1982) claim that the above three are the only clear dimensions that have been identified across most studies, and that additional dimensions are still to be found. Russell, who is one of the most parsimonious cognitivists, vacillated between this three dimensional model (Russell & Mehrabian, 1977), and a two dimensional solution of 1) Evaluation and 2) dynamism (Russell, 1980; Russell & Bullock, 1986).
On the other hand, there are those who follow the ideas of Descartes (1647/1967). These scientists espouse the Nativist approach, and emphasize the importance and the richness of the hereditary biological and psychological equipment of the individual. They usually support one version or another of the genetic approach to emotion, originated by Darwin.
Descartes (1649/1967) identified six "simple passions" (of the mind) and listed them as: 1) Wonder; 2) Love; 3) Hatred; 4) Desire; 5) Joy; 6) Sadness. He claimed that "all the others are composed of some of these six or are species of them" (p362).
Modern scientists of this trend claim that the subjective emotional experience and its communication (i.e., both perception and expression) are mainly results of appraisals done by inborn mechanisms of the brain. They usually call these mechanisms "basic emotions".
Some of them, like Plutchik (1980, 1982), Izard (1971, 1977, 1984), Frijda (1986), Ekman (1982) and Ekman & Friesen (1982), put forward lists of seven to ten basic emotions - with a good congruence between these lists and between their lists and that of Descartes. Ekman & Friesen (1982) summarized their comprehensive comparative study with a list of seven basic emotions commonly judged from still photographs of posed facial behavior, namely: 1) surprise 2) interest 3) anger 4) disgust/contempt 5) happiness 6) sadness 7) fear. They added that this list is only of the clearly depicted basic emotions but not an exhaustive one.
The modern scientists following Descartes' ideas are explicitly or implicitly also following Darwin's (1872) first scientific theory of emotion. In his theory, Darwin claimed that there are specific inborn emotions - each of them includes a specific pattern of activation of the facial expression and behavior.
According to the first principle of Darwin's theory, these inborn basic emotions originated in serviceable associated habits - with relations between them like those between vomiting and the expression of disgust. In the second principle of his theory, he claimed that each of the basic emotions consists of a pair of bipolar antitheses - like the two opposing poles of fear and serenity. According to his third principle, the emotional phenomena can result from direct actions of the nervous system - like jumping up and down without any aim, when excessively excited.
Most of Darwin's followers took from his three principle theory of emotion only the first one, which says that the origin of the inborn pattern of each basic emotion is an hereditary serviceable associated habit. Like Darwin, they regard the inborn facial expression of emotion to be the main aspect of emotion. Like him they regard the subjective experience of emotion as the main aspect of emotion observable by oneself. Like Darwin, they regarded cross-cultural studies as the main test for their specific approaches. But, none of them studied the bipolarity inherent - according to Darwin - in each of the basic emotions.
Based on Darwin, these scientists searched for cross-cultural inborn facial expressions of emotion, both to establish the truth of the genetic approach to the theory of emotion as a whole and their own version of it - as well as to decide about specific candidates for their collection of "basic emotions", which is the modern term for Descartes' "basic passion of the mind".
Paradoxically, to date there are studies that support both approaches, thus, in a way, refuting both. Results of thousands of studies, which were mostly carried out in the verbal domain and used various dimensional analyzes, support parsimonious cognitive approaches. These studies seem to confirm the claim that two or three abstract dimensions are the basic components of all specific instances of emotion.
However, results of many studies carried out by scientists of the genetic approach, show that, the basic emotions of their lists have the same specific facial expressions all over the world, and that these basic emotions construct complex emotional experiences. To make things more complicated, results of many studies - in the verbal and the nonverbal domains - seem to support, in a way, both approaches.
In many of the more complex studies - like that of Osgood, Suci & Tennenbaum (1957) - the contents of few of the variables and dimensions discerned in them converge with the above three abstract ones and the contents of others converge with that of the basic emotions of the geneticist approach.
Izard (1971) and Frijda (1970) who reviewed results of studies that contradicted the genetic approach or were not unequivocal, claimed that these results are irrelevant. They argued that multidimensional analyzes might be inappropriate for the study of the basic variables of emotion.
On the other hand, Osgood, Russell and others of the parsimonious cognitive trend claim that the concrete emotional phenomena and the specific basic emotions found are the creation of the abstract cognitive emotional variables together with non-emotional variables (and are not primary emotional variables). They claim that the entire emotionality of each phenomenon can be relegated to the two or three abstract emotional continua of the brain proposed by them.
Scientists like Leventhal (1979, 1982), Plutchic (1980), Ekman & Friesen (1982), and Smith & Ellsworth (1985) try to reconcile the findings and the theories of the two approaches. The proposed solutions are essentially of two kinds:
a) There are those who offer one kind or another of dualistic approaches to emotion. Like Leventhal and Ekman, they claim that both variables are at work, but they do not integrate them into a united multidimensional model, nor do they try to reconcile the contradicting results.
b) There are those - like Plutchik or Smith, who offer an integrated
multidimensional model, supported by empirical findings. Usually, the space
of their models has dimensions with a somewhat abstract content. But, in the
space of these models, the concrete basic emotions can be located as points
or regions.
The theory presented in this study is an attempt to reconcile the apparent
contradiction between the two contending schools in a different way. It may
be regarded as a refinement of the first approach. We capitalized on the
fact that most of the studies supporting the parsimonious cognitive approach
were leaning heavily on the verbal domain, and those of the genetic approach
were leaning mainly on facial expressions. In that theory it was claimed
that the emotional phenomenon is bi-modal - one mode is a verbal and
abstract, and one mode is nonverbal and concrete.
b) In evaluating the similarity between their own emotional feelings at that moment and those which are conveyed in words, subjects use mainly the abstract dimensions of emotion.
b) 148 words.
The words were mainly drawn from studies of the emotional domain published
by the authors cited in this paper (translated to Hebrew). The list
consisted of: b\I - a wide variety of 96 words of emotion(4); b\II - 52 words
which were included for control of various response sets. Part of them are
words of emotion and another part are names of dimensions of emotion
previously found.
The first assessment of the photographs (and the only one for the words) was made by means of structured scaling. Each item was rated separately, on a fixed scale of six grades of congruence: one being "differ very much"; two - "different"; three - "slightly more different than similar"; four - "slightly more similar than different"; five - "similar"; six - "very similar" (to be called hence: S-TASK). The photographs were numbered and were presented one after the other in the same order for all subjects. The 48 Szondi Test items were presented first, and according to their original order.
Then, were presented the 33 items of material a\II and the 24 items of
material a\III - according to their order in appendix 1. Subjects scored the
photographs on a page containing numerical-graphical scales of six steps for
each item. The full six verbal-numerical scale was printed both at the top
and the bottom of that page.
Then the subject assessed the 148 words which were printed alphabetically on
one page - with a six grade graphic-numerical scale near each. Here too, the
full six verbal-numerical scale was printed both at the top and the bottom
of the page.
Afterwards, the subject assessed the 105 photographs again. This time by
means of forced choice, to control for bias and ceiling effects (to be
called hence - Q-SORT). In that task, the photographs were divided into
groups of 7 to 12 items - which included one sample of each emotion wherever
possible.
The judgments were expressed here by arranging the items within each group
in six grades of the same scale of the S-TASK, with the added instruction of
"relatively to the other items of the group". For groups of seven and nine
items a seventh grade of 3.5 was added; for groups of eight nine and ten
items there were two places for the intermediate grades; for the groups of
12, each grade had two places.
Step 2) For each subject, the dimensional scores were computed for each
dimension of the 10 dimensional analysis of the S.S.A.-I. The subject's
dimension score for each of the 10 dimensions was the sum of 48 products -
those of his raw score for each of the 48 items multiplied by the coordinate
of that item on that dimension(6).
--------------------------
Step 3) For each subject, two group scores were computed for each of the
nine groups of photographs of basic emotions (material a\II) - one for the
S-TASK and one for the Q-SORT.
Step 4) The dimensionality of the 96 emotional words (material b\II) was
analyzed using the same procedure as in step 1.
Step 5) For each subject, the dimensional scores were computed for the
ten dimensional analyzes of the 96 words as done in Step 2.
Step 6) a comprehensive matrix of Spear-man non-metric correlations among
the variables was computed. It included the dimensional scores of step two
and five (10+10), the group scores computed in step three (9+9), the raw
scores of the words (148) and those of the photographs of the two procedures
(105+105). This was done within each group of scores, as well as with all
the scores of the other groups - resulting in a matrix of 396 by 396.
For each task, the difference between the ten correlations' profile(8) of
each of the 9 emotions and the profiles of each of the other 8 emotions was
computed.
_______________
The significance of the differences was estimated by the Hoteling test for
the differences between correlated correlations (as suggested by Guilford,
1965). It shows that among the 72 differences (36 for each task) only 5
failed to reach significance - each for a different pair of emotions. Thus
leaving five of the 36 pairs of emotions with a significant difference on
one task only.
Thus - relying on the nonverbal data alone - results supported the first
hypothesis of the study, which predicted that "the assessment of subjects of
the extent to which facial expressions of emotion are like their own, would
be done mainly along dimensions that have the same content of basic
emotions".
However, due to ceiling effects for part of the unpleasant basic emotions in
the S-TASK and for the more pleasant ones in the Q-SORT procedure; and due
to insufficient content validity of the artificial facial expressions of
basic emotions - the results are not as clear cut as we could have wished.
To deepen the understanding of the results and to clarify the picture, a
painstaking item-by-item check of scores distribution was done. With the
same aim, a thorough check of the 396 by 396 matrix of correlations was
carried out. These steps enabled the unequivocal interpretation of all 10
dimensions and resulted in a clearer picture. The contents of the 10
dimensions - as out-putted by the computer program and not rotated by hand
afterwards are as follows: I. Happiness versus Sadness; II. Interest in
others + leniency versus drowsiness; III. Fear; IV. Anger (or firmness
versus embarrassment); V. Surprise (stupefaction); VI. Troubled -
guilt-worry-frustration, versus relief; VII. Shame; VIII. Seems to have the
content of contempt; IX. Love versus hate; X. Disgust.
The interpretation of the content of each dimension is made according to the
convergence of information that is taken from two main sources. One is the
content of the words that are on the edges - the two margins of each
dimension of the S.S.A.-I analysis, which is the base of the classical way
of interpretation. The other is the detailed inspection of the matrix of
correlations of the 10 dimensions with the other 386 scores - the unique
contribution of the paradigm of the unfolding model.
The first dimension: contentment versus distress.
The third dimension: pride versus embarrassment.
The fourth dimension: indifference versus surprise and excitement.
The fifth dimension: the dimension of pity.
The sixth dimension: suspiciousness (and astonishment) versus longing.
The seventh dimension: responsibility and involvement versus laxity.
The eighth dimension: patience and loneliness versus longing and love.
The ninth dimension: guilt and depression versus contempt and disregard.
The tenth dimension: hostility versus conciliation.
None of the correlations of the above ten dimensions with control words -
the content of which was the name of cognitive dimensions - was higher than
those with relevant words of emotion. The correlations of those control
words with the above ten dimensions were even lower than the correlations of
these dimensions with the relevant photographs of facial expressions of the
basic emotions.
The support of our first hypothesis together with the refutation of the
second hypothesis may be seen as a considerable support for Descartes'
philosophical arguments about emotional phenomena, as well as for Darwin's
version of the genetic approach to emotion.
Results thus refute the claims of Spinoza and that of the abstract cognitive
approach to emotion who claim that their cognitive dimensions are dimensions
of emotional experience. It might be that their dimensions are the
dimensions of abstract cognitive conceptualization of emotion or emotionally
related processes and phenomena. Still, if one inspects the content of the
first three concrete dimensions of the words of emotion, one can see that
the three abstract dimensions of the parsimonious-cognitive approach are an
abstraction of them.
It is still too early to decide which was the main reason for that
abstraction in previous studies. It could be the result of the design of the
studies - where according to Hirschberg (1980), subjects can use emotional
or non-emotional dimensions of discrimination on the same items - according
to the wording of the instructions. It could also be the result of
subjective interpretation of the content of the dimensions by the scientist
- who could not rely in the past on rich inter-correlation matrixes
including both dimensions and other variables.
Our results also show that the dimensional approach to the emotional domain
does not compete with that of the basic emotion - as suspected by Ekman &
Friesen (1982); nor that there is a contradiction between the two - as
suspected by Izard (1971). Our results clearly show that the two converge.
Furthermore, our results also show that previous studies of the basic
emotions were lacking. For instance, nearly all the categorical research of
the basic emotions claimed that happiness and sadness - called also by some:
sorrow or distress - are two different and independent basic emotions.
However, both the sub-study of the verbal domain and the sub-study of the
nonverbal domain have found them (independently) to be two opposing poles of
the same emotional dimension - the first and most loaded one in both.
Thus, our study gives substantial support to Darwin's (1872) second
principle of emotion which claims that the inborn emotions are bipolar. The
bipolar findings are also congruent with findings of modern neurological
studies of the Amigdala of the Limbic system of the brain. Clearly
demonstrating this are findings about the bipolarity function of the
Amigdala in the creation of the emotional experience of the basic emotions -
as showed by Fonberg (1986) and Panksep (1986).
Our results also support Hirschberg's (1980) claims that emotional
experience is too complex to be studied in the prevailing paradigm. She
suggested the multidimensional unfolding model as the more appropriate
paradigm for this domain and the one that would clarify many unresolved
questions about the emotional domain. -13-
Materials: a\I - The 48 items of the Szondi test were arranged according to
the original arrangement in six groups - two rows on a plate.
Materials: a\II and a\III - The 57 items were arranged in two to three rows
on the plate with three to four in each row, according to the number of
items.
Plates VII - X are of the 33 items of basic emotions, XI - XII are of the 24
artificial mixtures of emotion taken from Ekman & Friesen (1975).
Descartes, R. (1649) Treatise on the passions of the soul. In the
Philosophical Works Of Descartes: E.S. Halden & G.R.T. Ross (Trans.)
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V. (1975) Unmasking the Face. Engelwood Cliffs N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Ekman, P., (Ed.), (1982) Emotions in the Human Face. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.V., (1982) What emotion categories or dimensions can
observers Judge from facial behaviour? In P. Ekman (Ed.), Emotions in the
Human Face. London: Cambridge University Press.
Fonberg, E. (1986) Amygdala, emotions, motivation, and depressive states. In
R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion - Theory Research and Experience.
New York: Academic Press, Vol. 3.
Frijda, N.H. (1970) Emotions and recognition of emotion. In M.B. Arnold
(Ed.). Feeling and Emotions: The Loyola Symposium. New York: Academic Press.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N.H. (1986) The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1965) Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill, (Fourth edition).
Guttman, L. (1957) Introduction to facet analysis. In Proceedings of the
Fifteenth International Congress of Psychology, Brussels 1957. Amsterdam:
North Holland Publishing Co.
Guttman L.A. (1968) A generalized nonmetric technique for finding the
smallest coordinate space for configuration of points. Psychometrica, 33,
469.
Hirschberg, N. (1980) Individual differences in social judgment: a
multivariate approach. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in Social Psychology.
Hilsdale, N.J.: Lawrence and Erlbaum Associates.
Izard, C.E. (1971) The Face of Emotion. New York: Meredith.
Izard, C. E. (1977) Human Emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Izard C.E. (1984) Emotion-cognition relationships and human development. In
C.E. Izard, J. Kagan & R.B. Zajonc (Eds.). Emotion, Cognition and Behavior.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leventhal, H.A. (1979) Perceptual-motor procession model of emotion. In P.
Plinter, K.R. Blakstein and I.M. Spigel (Eds.), Perception of Emotion in
Self and Others. New York: Plenum Press.
Leventhal, H. (1982) A perceptual motor theory of emotion. Social Science
Information, 21, 819-845.
Lingoes, J. C. (1973) The Guttman-Lingoes Nonmetric Program series.
Michigan: Mathesis Press.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tennenbaum, P.H. (1957) The measurement of
Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Osgood, C.E. (1969) Introduction. In J.G. Snider & C.E. Osgood (Eds.),
Semantic Differential Technique. Chicago: Aldine.
Pankssep, J. (1986) The anatomy of emotions. In R. Plutchik and H. Kellerman
(Eds.), Emotion - Theory Research and Experience. New York: Academic Press,
Vol. 3.
Plutchik, R. (1980) Emotion a Psycho-Evolutionary Synthesis. New York:
Harper.
Plutchik, R. (1982) A psycho-evolutionary theory of emotions. Social Science
Information, 21, 529-553.
Russell, J.A. & Mehrabian, A. (1977) Evidence for a three-factor theory of
emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 273-294.
Russell, J.A. (1980) A circumflex model of affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
Russell, J.A. & Bullock, M. (1986) On the dimensions preschoolers use to
interpret facial expressions of emotion. Developmental Psychology, 22,
97-102.
Shalif, I., Lerner, Y. and Dasberg, H. (1981) A symptom profile analysis of
anti-psychotic drug treatment: non-parametric multidimensional technique.
Psychiatry Research, 4, 1-12.
Smith, C.A. & Ellsworth, P.C. (1985) Patterns of cognitive appraisal in
emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.
Szondi, L. (1947) Experimental Diagnosis of Drives. Bern: Hans
Huber.(Translated by G. Hull, New York: Grune and Stratton, 1953.)
Takane, Y., Young, F. W. & DeLeeuw, j. (1977) Nonmetric individual
differences, multidimensional scaling. Psychometrica, 142, 7-67.
For suggestions and complains click on:
ilan@shalif.com
____________________
In this paradigm the subject ratings can be done along a common range for
all items - if the content of a domain can be summed up clearly in one
phrase.
------------------------
The finding of the dimensions of the studied domain(s) is based here on the
matrix(es) of correlation between the items. The interpretation of the
content of those dimensions can be objectively interpreted in two ways: a)
according to the location of the items on the non-parametric
multidimensional analysis projection maps - wherever the items are clearly
interpretable. b) using a multidimensional unfolding model like that of
Hirschberg (1980), Takane et al. (1977), or Shalif et al. (1981). In this
kind of analysis the interpretation of the content of a dimension can be
made according to the correlations between subjects' dimension score (of
that dimension) and their scores for items inside and outside the
multidimensional analyzes.
To test the hypotheses of the study, the following steps were taken:
Step 1) We analyzed the dimensionality of the scores of the 48 mixed
emotional photographs (material a\I) of the S-TASK (which had a reasonable
spread). It was done by the S.S.A.-I of the Guttman Lingoes series of
non-parametric multidimensional analysis technique (Lingoes, 1973) - all
solutions from two dimensions to ten (the maximum possible) were examined.
(6) The mathematical expression is: "the multiplication of a row of 48
numbers by a matrix of ten columns by 48 rows".
--------------------------
FOR THE FIRST HYPOTHESIS
The correlations between each of the 9 groups of photographs of basic
emotions in the two tasks are brought in the following table 1. In it, only
the sixth dimension was not correlated significantly with any of the group
scores of basic emotions.
Table No. 1: The correlations between the dimensions' scores of the 48 Szondi
items (step 2) and the groups' scores of basic emotions (step 3) - S for the
S-TASK and Q for the Q-SORT, with level of significance.
Emotion |___________________________Dimension________________________________
----------| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Happiness |0.63!| 0.13 | -.05 | 0.10 | 0.07 | -.07 | 0.16+| 0.03 | 0.12 | -.03
Q|0.56!| -.05 | 0.04 | 0.10 | -.03 | -.07 | 0.16+| 0.02 | 0.17*| 0.01
Surprise S|0.25!| 0.09 | -.11 | 0.06 | 0.17*| -.03 | 0.06 | -.16+| -.02 | 0.02
Q|0.31!| -.02 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.01 | -.08 | 0.07 | -.10 | 0.11 | 0.05
Interest S|0.16*| 0.24!| -.07 | 0.01 | 0.14+| -.02 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.04
Q|0.07 | -.02 | 0.08 | -.01 | -.05 | -.01 | 0.01 | -.04 | 0.04 | 0.20*
Fear S|-.22!| -.05 | -.30!| 0.03 | 0.11 | -.00 | 0.10 | -.08 | -.16+| -.05
Q|-.15+| -.11 | -.19!| -.15+| -.04 | 0.13 | 0.04 | -.10 | -.07 | -.14+
Anger S|-.27!| -.01 | -.25!| 0.13 | 0.11 | -.03 | 0.01 | -.11 | -.16*| -.04
Q|-.23!| 0.03 | -.11 | 0.22!| 0.07 | -.09 | 0.01 | -.00 | -.01 | 0.02
Disgust S|-.14+| -.00 | -.29!| 0.04 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.05 | -.07 | -.15+| -.02
Q|0.03 | -.11 | -.08 | 0.04 | 0.05 | -.02 | -.03 | 0.03 | -.09 | 0.10
Sadness S|-.35!| -.02 | -.24!| -.01 | 0.13 | 0.11 | -.01 | -.06 | -.13 | -.07
Q|-.42!| -.04 | -.04 | -.06 | 0.01 | 0.06 | -.08 | 0.07 | -.13 | 0.02
Contempt S|-.16+| 0.22!| -.12 | -.00 | 0.07 | -.03 | -.00 | -.06 | -.06 | -.10
Q|-.06 | 0.17*| 0.11 | -.16*| -.13 | 0.01 | -.03 | 0.04 | 0.05 | -.08
Shame S|-.27!| 0.25!| 0.02 | -.12 | 0.04 | 0.03 | -.15+| 0.04 | -.05 | 0.01
Q|-.33!| 0.11 | 0.14 | -.04 | -.10 | 0.08 | -.17*| 0.11 | -.05 | -.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Plus (+) means .02.05 (one tail).
(8) The profiles are the S rows and the Q rows shown in Table No.1.
---------------
FOR THE SECOND HYPOTHESIS
Following are the main results relating to the correlations among the 10
dimensions of discrimination between the 96 words of emotion, and those
between the dimensions and all the other 386 variables of the study. The 10
dimension inter-correlation matrix shows that only one of the 45
correlations - that between the first and the second dimensions - is
significant: r=-.20, p<.004 (two-tail). This may be the result of uneven
sampling of the emotional domain due to our unintentional bias, due to the
bias of the language itself, due to uneven distribution of the subjects
emotional experience, or due to the relativity (or incompleteness) of the
independence between the various basic emotion.
The words that are on the edges (near the margins of this dimension) are:
calmness, at ease, and contentment on one side, versus misery and distress
on the other side. The words that have the highest correlations with it are:
depression -.67; distress -.69; sadness -.67; at-ease +.69; calmness +.74;
contentment +.69; satisfied +.72; and happiness +.67 - p<.001 for all of
them. The dimension's highest correlations with subgroups of facial
expressions of basic emotions are with happiness +.57 and -.40 for sadness.
The second dimension: alertness (vigilance) versus serenity.
On its edges are alertness, tension and curiosity versus serenity,
disrespect and relief. Its highest correlations are: alertness +.47;
complexity +.46 disappointment +.42; stubbornness +.40; serenity -.38;
disregard -.27; happiness -.33; relief -.26; satisfied -.30; and tranquility
-.29 - all are of p<.001. The dimension's significant correlations are with
the subgroups of happiness and shame.
On its edges are pride, firmness, and haughtiness versus fatigue,
embarrassment - pride +.46; superiority +.42; courage +.43; firmness +.53;
embarrassment -.31; fatigue -.34; anxiety -.27; shame -.25; and weakness
-.27; all are of p<.001. The dimension's correlations with subgroups of
basic emotions are with sadness -.20, p<.02; shame -.14, p<.05 and anger
+.19, p<.02.
On its edges are surprise, adoration, curiosity, shame and panic versus
Indifference, boredom and routine. Indifference +.42; sleepy +.16; boredom
+.24; routine +.16; surprise -.59; excitement -.46; gratitude -.48; love
-.43; panic -.44; shame -.43; Its highest correlations with subgroups of
photographs of emotions are with surprise and fear both of -.22 p<.002.
The words on its edges are pity, compassion, leniency versus sympathy,
curiosity, surprise and helpless. The highest correlations are with pity
-.67; compassion -.53; leniency -.56; tenderness -.41; all are of p<.001.
Positively correlated with it are only confusion +.15 p<.038 and love +.17
p<.018. The dimension is also correlated with the interest subgroup: -.18,
p<.02 and with mixtures of anger + disgust and anger + contempt - both of
+.21, p<.004.
On its edges are: scepticism, astonishment, suspiciousness, curiosity,
caution versus longing, compassion, leniency. The highest correlations are
with suspiciousness +.34; astonishment +.35; scepticism +.24 versus longing
-.48; compassion -.29; courage -.28 and yearning -.27.
On its edges are: routine versus indifference, longing and scepticism. Its
highest correlations are with routine +.40; worry +.25 animosity -.27;
attraction -.30; delight -.30; mirth -.24; indifference -.29; longing -.31.
It is also significantly correlated with the subgroup of surprise: -.15,
p<.05.
The marginal words on its edges are loneliness, patience and involvement on
the one side, versus hope, longing, excitement, desire and delighted which
are on the other side. Its highest correlations are with patience +.31 and
leniency +.33 (both p<.001). Negatively correlated with it are happiness,
craving, excitement, weakness, desire, alarm, slumber, fatigue, longing, and
hope - all with p<.002 (the lovers' cluster).
On its edges are: caution, fatigue and disregard versus loneliness, contempt
and scepticism. Correlations of the significance level of p<.002 are with
caution, disregard, embitterment and fatigue versus contempt, loneliness and
scepticism. These of .002>p<.02 are with guilt, despair, haughtiness,
posing, pain, anger, confidence, blur, restlessness, servility, sleepy and
slumber versus boredom and involvement. A possible common denominator for
the words that are in the direction of caution and disregard is the
depression syndrome - guilt, despair and pain, and their results -
restlessness and fatigue.
The marginal words on its edges are: hate, pain and fatigue versus
conciliated and serenity. Correlations with the conciliation direction that
reach the significance level of p<.002 are of alarm, alertness, adoration,
conciliated, contentment, desire, disappointment, longing, repulsion,
right(ness), serenity. Correlations with the direction of the hostility
having the significance of .002
And so, results contradict our second hypothesis and consequently refute our
reconciliation theory.
The following matrix of correlation in Table no 2. sums up the results of
the two sub-studies - the nonverbal and the verbal one. It clearly
demonstrates their being of the same domain. Part of the dimensions of the
original computer output were rotated for ease of representation. The matrix
of 100 correlations between the two sets of 10 dimensions contains in it 10
with p<.01 and among them 6 are of p<.001. There is a clear convergence of 6
of the 10 dimensions of facial expression and 8 of these of the words of
emotion. These results deepen the refutation of the second hypothesis of
this study.
Table No. 2: The matrix of correlations between the dimensions' scores of
the words and those of the facial expressions with two-tail significance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1 | 2 |3$(9)| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7$ | 8$ | 9 | 10
* Facial |Hppi |Inter | F | A | Su |Troub| S | Co |Love |Disgust
* express |ness | est| e | n | rp | led| h | nt | | -
- * ions |Sad- | in | a | g | ri |Light| a | em | |Satisf
Words * | ness|others| r | er | se | ness| me | pt | Hate| fction
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
1 Contentment| .60 | .25 | -.12| .14 |-.04 |-.08 |-.10 | .02 | .13 | -.01
- Distress |.001 |.001 | .094|.044 |**(10)| ** | ** | ** | .065| **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
2 Alertness |-.28 | .10 | -.13| .08 | .23 | .17 | .05 | .00 | .12 | -.05
- Serenity |.001 | ** | .060| ** | .001 | .018| ** | ** | .097| **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
3 pride - Emb| .01 | .06 | .01 | .29 | .05 | .01 |-.19 | .09 | -.03| -.04
arrassment| ** | ** | ** |.001 | ** | ** |.004 | ** | ** | **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
4$ Excitement|-.06 |-.07 | -.09| .00 | .00 |-.07 | .05 |-.10 | -.04| .07
-Indifference| ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
5$ Pity | .04 | .15 | .01| .03 | .05 | .06 |-.03 |-.02 | -.10| .10
| ** |.018 | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
6$ Longing - | .12 |-.11 | .06| .02 |-.16 | .24 | .08 | .01 | .04| .03
Scepticism|.093 | ** | ** | ** |.022 |.001 | ** | ** | ** | **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
7$ Nonrespon |-.07 | .02 | -.02| .05 | .14 |-.08 | .03 |-.05 | .04| .14
- sibility| ** | ** | ** | ** |.050 | ** | ** | ** | **| .055
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
8 Patience |-.05 | .09 | .01|-.19 | .00 |-.01 | .05 |-.03 | -.04| .04
- Love | ** | ** | ** |.006 | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
9 Guilt - | .05 |-.05 | -.02|-.05 | .04 | .18 |-.06 | .04 | -.01| -.08
Contempt| ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |.006 | ** | ** | ** | **
-------------|-----|------|-----|-----|------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------
10 conciliati| .09 | .11 | .08|-.08 | .03 |-.09 |-.03 |-.02 | .05 | -.10
on-Hostility| ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | **
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) $ means that the initial dimension was rotated 1800 for presentation
clarity.
(10) ** means that the significance level is of p>.10 two-tail.
In the above matrix there is one puzzling correlation. Though the
correlation of -.13 between the alertness direction of the second dimension
of the words, and the fear direction of the third dimension of the facial
expression missed being significant (p>.06) it still blots the clear picture
a bit. As it converges with a smaller positive correlation between the fear
direction and that of happiness of the nonverbal sub-study: correlation of
-.05 with the unrotated third dimension of the S-TASK of table No.1, it
might be the result of specific factors of the season and the subjects - the
end of the year examinations.
DISCUSSION
In addition, though not so clearly, many of the other dimensions of
emotional experience and expression were found in this study to have a
bipolar content, both in the verbal and the nonverbal sub-studies.
************
APPENDIX No. 1: THE SOURCE OF THE 57 ITEMS OF MATERIALS: a\II AND a\III
The item numbers, their source and their placement on the plates:
An Anger Ha Happiness Cn Control D Down No. Number
Co Contempt In Interest Sc Scepticism U Up p Page
Dg Disgust Sa Sadness Qu Questioning L Left 71 Izard(1971)
Dt Distress Sh Shame Ne Neutral M Middle 77 Izard (1977)
Fe Fear Su Surprise Mx Mixed R Right 75 Ekman & Friesen (1975)
The arrangement of the photographs on the plates
VII(11) VIII IX X
1 Ha 75 p112 L | 8 In 77 p85 No.5 |17 Ha 75 p112 R |22 In 71 p329 R
2 Su 75 p42 L | 9 Ha 71 p236 No.2 |18 Su 75 p45 L |23 Ha 71 p328 M
3 Fe 75 p181 R U |10 Su 71 p236 No.3 |19 Fe 75 p62 R |26 Su 71 p328 L
4 An 75 p185 L D |11 Dt 71 p236 No.4 |20 An 75 p42 R |27 Sa 75 p127 R(12)
5 Dg 75 p30 R |12 An 71 p237 No.6 |21 Dg 75 p30 L |28 An 77 p88 No.9
6 Sa 75 p193 L D |13 Sh 71 p237 No.7 |22 Sa 75 p127 L |29 Sh 71 p329 L
7 Co 75 p183 L D |14 Fe 71 p330 L |23 Co 75 p25 R U |30 Dt 75 p122 R
|15 Dg 71 p328 R | |31 Fe 77 p91 No.1
|16 Ha 71 p237 No.9 | |32 Dg 71 p237 No.5
|33 Co 71 p330 M
XI XII
1 Ne p38 L | 7 An+Fe p96 R || 13 Su+Qu p177 R D | 19 Mx p86 R D
2 Su+Fe p59 R D| 8 An+Cn p97 L || 14 Ne p51 L | 20 Ha+Su p197 L U
3 Su+Dg p73 D | 9 Ha+Su p108 L || 15 Co+An p185 R U | 21 Ha+Su p197 R U
4 Sc+D p74 L |10 Ha+An p110 L || 16 Co+Dg p72 R D | 22 Ha+Co p109 D
5 Mx p86 L U|11 Sa+Fe p122 L || 17 Sc+Dg p74 R | 23 Sa+Dg p125 L
6 An+Dg p93 D |12 Sa+An p123 D || 18 Fe+Dg p75 D | 24 Sa+Ha p126 L
_____________________________
(11) The Roman numerals indicate the plates. The Arabic numerals indicate
the items in their respective group - a\II and a\III
(12) This item is of Distress according to Izard (1977). But he took it from
Ekman & Friesen (1975) who made it represent Sadness.
---------------------------------
APPENDIX No.2: The list of 148 words of materials b and their subgroups
"C" Words that have the letter "C" to their left, are words of emotion that
were included for control and are not part of the basic list of 96.
"*" Words that have the asterisk "*" to their left, are names of dimensions
and variables that were found in previous studies and are not emotions.
activity delighted haughtiness * self-restraint
adoration * dependence helplessness * restraint
alarm depression hope right(ness)
alertness desire humiliation * rigor
anger despair indifference routine
animosity * Dimness inferiority sadness
annoyance disappointment * initiative satisfaction
anxiety disgust * intensity satisfied
* appetite * disqualificate interest scepticism
* approval C disquiet involvement scorn
* artificiality disregard joy serenity
astonishment disrespect leniency servility
at ease distress loneliness shame
attraction droopy longing * sharpness
* balanced embarrassment C love C shyness
belonging embitterment * meditative * simplicity
C bitterness enjoyment C mirth * sincerity
* blur C envy misery * honesty
boldness * exaggeration C mockery * sleepy
boredom excitement * naturalness * slumber
calmness fatigue nervousness sorrow
caution fear pain * stability
* clearness firmness panic stubbornness
compassion fondness * passiveness suffering
* complexity C friendly patience C superiority
* complexity frustration pity surprise
C concern C gaiety pleasure suspiciousness
conciliated C generosity * posing sympathy
confidence gloom pride tenderness
* confusion grateful quiscence tension
contempt C greediness regret tolerance
contentment grievance relaxed tranquillity
courage guilt relief * unstable
C craving bliss repulsion * vigilance
* criticism happiness C respect * weakness
curiosity * haste C restlessness worry
decisiveness hate restrained yearning
REFERENCES
Darwin, C. (1872) The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John
Murray (1965. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago press).
The other home-pages:
http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy
To the TOP
To the opening page ---->