CMN 122 final exam

Channel approach of emotions

Looking at one channel and not how they might be connected

Functional approach of emotions

Multiple behaviors work together

Any given behavior can serve multiple functions, especially when paired with other behaviors

Historical approach to emotions

Dominance/control, our behavior is about having dominance or control over someone

Affiliation/intimacy, Our behavior is about trying to connect to other people or having a connection with them

Convey information encoding function

Convey emotion, traits like having anxiety, reactions

Regulation of conversation encoding function

Greeting, turn takings, terminating an interaction

Intimacy encoding function

Communicate desire, mutual eye gaze, sharing space, touching

Social control encoding function

Goal oriented function, we want to influence each other, being persuasive

Impression management encoding function

Trying to control how people perceive us, we want to enhance our image at like a job interview, I want to show this aspect of me

Affect management encoding function

Managing our emotions, like gaining space when feeling emotion, decreasing eye gaze, smiling less

Service task encoding function

Accomplishing a task, not about communicating something. Like going to the eye doctor, we have to stare at each other. `

Functional approach sensitizes us

To discover what behavior means, we know what a nonverbal behavior is by a certain nonverbal behavior

Functional approach helps us recognize

Recognize multiple channels can mean different things. Other contexts can change the meaning, Channels can serve many different purposes

Functional approach helps us organize

Organize the channels and help us see the connection between channels.

Ekman’s neurocultural “theory” of emotion

Explain how we display emotions in the presence of others. When we are alone we all express the same, but with other people around we follow display rules on how to display

Elicitors

Environmental factors that produce an emotional state. An image or a joke

Facial affect program

The brains functions and trigger facial muscles that display emotion. Elicitors trigger this. Include the universal emotions

Display rules

Cultural, personal, or situational factors that impact how we display emotions

Behavioral consequences

The verbal and nonverbal signs of emotions. So how the behaviors we do to signal we are feeling an emotions

Intensify display rule

Show the emotion stronger than what we are actually feeling

Attenuate/deintensification display rule

Make it seem like we sharing less emotion than we are feeling. Showing only a little bit of what we are feeling

Neutralize/inhibition display rule

Give the impression that we are feeling no emotion, when we actually are. Give a poker face

Mask display rule

Showing a different emotion than what we are feeling

Simulation

Show an emotion on the outside, but on the inside we are feeling no emotion. Like actors.

Olympic media winners study

Gold medal winners displayed true smile, most silver medal winners showed non-Duchenne smiles. Regardless of culture

Blind and sighted athletes showed the same facial expression and emotion when losing, showing that smiles and frowns are innate, not learned

Facial Feedback Hypothesis

External facial displays affect internal emotional state

Scent study with facial expression

Positively posed faces ranked smells as more positive compared to faces that were posed negatively which ranked them more negatively. Spontaneous was in the middle

Effects of the Duchenne Smile on the Experience of Emotion

High-Duchenne smile condition reported more positive experience when viewing pleasant scenes and cartoons

Tape study

People were happier when their cheeks were lifted (smile)

Internalizer

Low expressive, Don't express a lot of emotions. experience more arousal because they keep the emotion inside, it has to go somewhere so it goes inside

Externalizer

High expressive, Expresses a lot of emotions. Experience less arousal because they let emotions out

Mannequin study

People use different channels for different emotions • Touch: most w/ love or sympathy, least w/ guilt, shame, anger, disgust, fear, and embarrassment • Face used in most emotions except for shame and sympathy • Body used in most emotions except for love and sympathy • Shame—mostly in the body

Intimacy

Totally transparent and be emotional naked in front of another as they are being transparent too

Self reports of love correlated with

Increased affirmative head nods, Duchenne smiles, forward lean, and hand gestures

Mutual eye gaze and intimacy

People who engaged in mutual eye gaze reported more intimacy compared to those who did not engage in mutual eye gaze.

Gesture and Intimacy

In positive, friendly interactions, people exhibit more object focused gestures and fewer body focused gestures

Posture and Intimacy

•More forward lean •Direct shoulder/body orientation •Greater postural mimicry

Smiles and Intimacy

•Not a very reliable •Display rules

Space and Intimacy

• Intimate space 0-18” • Coupled with direct body orientation

Mehrabian’s famous formula

Liking judgments = .07 verbal + .38 vocal + .55 facial info

Nonverbal behaviors associated with higher judgments of social desirability/more attraction

•More head nods •More short back channels •Longer smile duration •More frequent filled pauses •Longer gaze duration

Touch to face

most affection, attraction, & love

Touch to waist

show high romantic attraction, but most indicative of harassment

Relationship Closeness and Decoding Nonverbal Behaviors

Close friends are better decoders of each others’ nonverbals than strangers are • Acquaintances are better than close friends at decoding partners’ negative affect when partners attempt to conceal their negative emotion

Motivated inaccuracy model

Friends are motivated to ignore negative emotions as it might be due to them, but acquittances do not care and have no motivation to ignore it

smooth turn transition

occurs when the floor switches from person A to person B without a perceptible pause, These turns transitions occur in less than 250 ms. 50% of all turns are this

Cognitive Multitasking

•Floor switches are fast •People MUST be anticipating and predicting the end of a speaker’s turn •Listeners plan their utterances while still listening to the speaker’s utterance

Simultaneous turns

We are both trying to contribute to the conversation and add something

Simultaneous talk

Both people are speaking but one person is not trying to have the floor but reacting to what the other person has to say

Change in intonation (drop or rise)

Change in pitch. Raise pitch when asking a question. Drop pitch when making a statement and yielding the floor

Sociocentric sequence

Ending "you know?" means we are ending the statement. "and so on" and "but uh" "or something". These show the end of a speaking turn

Drawl

Elongate the final few syllables to end the turn

Termination of gestures

We use gestures to help us so when we are at the end we do not need them anymore

Drop in loudness

Drop in volume and not be quite as loud when we are ending our turn

Completion of a grammatical clause

Making a grammatical clause can signal the end

Gaze without a yielding cue

Look at you but don't give a yielding cue, we are not trying to give up the floor. Correlated with dominance

Gesture as a turn holding cue

one minute gesture and stopping gesture show we want to keep the floor

Gaze aversion

People who are not dominate might avert their eye gaze in order to show they do not want to yield the floor

Backchannels

Not meant to be a turn requesting cue, but sometimes appear to be. •Listeners participate in conversation •elicited in “gaze window” •used to AVOID taking the floor •Backchannels are also elicited • (1) sentence completions • (2) requests for clarification • (3) restatement

Speaker directed gaze

Do more looking while listening we are communicating that we want to speak

Audible inhalation

Literally breathing in loud enough for the speaker to hear

Forward lean

Lean forward that suggest we want to speak

Gesture as a turn requesting cue

Putting hand up to indicate we want to speak

A stutter start

When we start speaking and we get cut off, the start of speech does indicate we wanted to speak and still do

Conversation ending cues

•Body position •Gazing at a watch •Hands on thighs •Gathering possessions

Interruptions

To take the floor in the absence of turn yielding cues, there’s attempted and successful

Response to interruptions

People attempt to maintain the floor after an attempted interruption by increasing loudness •Success depends few turn yielding cues and the most turn requesting cues •Interruptions are commonly followed by interruptions

Interruptions & Status Perceptions

•People who interrupt are perceived as having higher status

•People who get interrupted rate themselves as less influential in the conversation

•Interrupters are perceived as less likable

Deep/Intrusive interruptions

Are aggressive. We threaten the territory of the speaker and try to change the topic. Disagreement is an important part of it. disagreeing interruptions were viewed POSITIVELY because it signal we are invested in the conversation and we want to talk

Supportive interruptions

Helpful interruption. Show we are agreeing with them and trying to help them. viewed positively

change subject interruptions

interruption viewed negatively

Same subject interruptions

Were not viewed as obnoxious unless they were frequent

Interruptions and healthcare providers

• Patient satisfaction is negatively associated with intrusive interruptions • But positively associated with supportive interruptions from physician

Behaviors Associated With the Dominance Function

• Persuasion

•Deception

•Impression Management

• More controlled hand/arm gestures

• And more total gestures

• Less interpersonal distance

• More successful interruptions

• Louder voice

• More speaking time

Dominance ratio

% looking while speaking / % of looking while listening, when peoples relative status in a conversation changes, their DR changes

ROTC officers

Have a dominance ratio of 1

ROTC cadets

have a dominance ratio of <1

Dominance ratio and college students study

DR close to 1 when subject had high status, <1 when low status

Posture & Status

•In dyadic interactions, people of higher status exhibit more forward lean (toward the partner) •Open and more relaxed posture too

Dominance ratio and perceptions of power

Increased DR lead to increases in judgments of dominance, this didn’t differ for M or F confederates

Dominance and facial expression

Weak expressions had no impact on dominance rating

Strong facial affect influenced ratings of dominance

Most to least dominant facial expression

Happiness, anger, disgust, sadness, fear

Shaved head and dominance

Men with shaved heads are judged to be more dominant than men with hair

More submissive head position

Head tilted down

More dominant head position

Head titled back, can be an indication of a happy face like throwing your head back and laughing

Decoding status from posture

Judges associate more forward lean with higher status

This is an accurate cue to judge status because status is also encoded through forward lean and more space

fMRI scan and results

The ventrolateral prefrontal cortex seems to be activated by nonverbal cues of status

The VLPFC modifies behavior through behavioral inhibition

You stop doing what you are doing and you pay attention to something else so status and dominate behaviors may stop us and get us to pay attention to them

Compliance gaining

The source tries to get the target to enact some sort of behavior, involve a source and target

Gaze and hitchhikers

hitch-hikers who gazed received significantly more offers for rides than those who did not gaze

Touch and requests

Significantly more people offered a dime in the touch vs. no touch condition

Touch was confounded by distance

•Eliminating the confound for space and touch

•Light touch to upper arm

•Exp. 1: 81% vs. 55% (touch vs. no touch) •Exp. 2: 70% vs. 40%

Other affects of touch

Longer staying for questionnaires, more likely to fill out a questionnaire, more likely to go to blackboard to solve a problem, more likely to order menu item suggested by wait staff

Touch and gaze

These together are even more effect when trying to get compliance gaining

The compliance rates were 86 to 92% when these were together

Touch and compliance gaining with children

Delayed gratification request, more likely to comply with waiting to eat candy if touched vs no touch

Issue in touch

Force: most studies use a very light touch

Body region: most studies used touch to the upper arm or shoulder (“friendly touch”)

Proxemics and compliance

Asking for a nickel at a phone booth

Compliance: 75% near, 44% far

Speech rate and compliance

Fast speech rate increased compliance rates, but only for some subjects. If a subject has poor decoding skills then slow or fast does not matter, but subjects with good decoding skills, fast speech rates were more likely to gain compliance than slow speech rate

Speech volume and compliance gaining

Compliance highest in medium speech volume, low in soft or loud conditions

Compliance gaining and clothing with touch

High status clothing results in higher compliance for both touch and no touch, but no touch was lower compared to touch. Low status clothing made compliance rates for both conditions very low, but no touch was the lowest between the two. Medium status also showed this pattern, but was higher than low status and lower than high status

Demand theory

All arousal is bad

Certain nonverbal behaviors produce arousal in others

Nonverbal behaviors can then function as a “demand” for something

The easiest way to get rid of the arousal is to comply with the demand

Arousal labeling theory

Make an attribution to explain the arousal

Nonverbal behaviors can produce arousal in others

People make attributions to explain their arousal

In making these attributions we label our arousal

If (+) we’ll comply, if (-) we won’t comply

Deception

an act intended to foster a false belief in another, a belief that the deceiver considers false