DOCSLIB.ORG

Trait Contempt and the Five Moral Foundations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trait Contempt and the Five Moral Foundations DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Science and Health Theses and Dissertations College of Science and Health Summer 8-23-2015 Trait Contempt and the Five Moral Foundations Russell Steiger DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/csh_etd Part of the Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Steiger, Russell, "Trait Contempt and the Five Moral Foundations" (2015). College of Science and Health Theses and Dissertations. 129. https://via.library.depaul.edu/csh_etd/129 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Science and Health at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Science and Health Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Trait Contempt and the Five Moral Foundations A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts By Rusty L. Steiger August, 2015 Department of Psychology College of Science and Health DePaul University Chicago, Illinois i Thesis Committee Christine Reyna, Ph.D, Chairperson Kimberly Quinn, Ph.D. Linda Camras, Ph.D. ii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis chair, Christine Reyna, and committee members Kimberly Quinn and Linda Camras for their support, advice, and encouragement throughout this project. I would also like to thank Christine Reyna and DePaul University for providing me with the amazing opportunity of an excellent (and tuition-free!) graduate education, as well as three years of employment in the most fun, challenging, and stimulating job I’ve ever had. I would also like to thank DePaul’s social psychology club (especially Geoffrey Wetherell, Or’Shaundra Benson, Jim Davis, and Verena Graupman) for their excellent feedback and advice throughout this thesis’ many stages of development. Finally, I would like to thank my family, for their unconditional love and support throughout this process. iii Biography Rusty L. Steiger was born in Burbank, Illinois, September 26th, 1984. He graduated from Lemont High School and received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Lewis University in 2012. With the completion of this thesis, he will receive his Master of Arts degree in Psychology from DePaul University in 2015. iv Table of Contents Thesis Committee………………………………………………………………….i Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..ii Biography………………………………………………………………………...iii List of Tables………………………………………………………………….....xii List of Figures.…………………………………………………………………..xiii Abstract...…….……………………………………………………………………1 Introduction.………………………………………………………………….…....4 Past Perspectives on Morality..…………………………………………....6 Contemporary Perspectives on Morality: Group-Level Moral Values……7 Shweder’s Three Ethics.………………………………………......8 Moral Foundations Theory…………………………………........10 Individualizing Foundations: Harm and Fairness ……….11 Socially Binding Foundations: Loyalty, Authority, and Purity ….….………………………………………...……12 Morality and Emotion……………………………………………………13 Different Types of Moral Emotions..…………………………….14 Classifications of the Moral Emotions ………………………......15 Links between Other-Critical Emotions and Moral Values..………….…16 Individual Differences in Emotion as a Predictor for Group-Level Moral Values ………………………………………………………………….. 18 v A Gap in the Literature: Trait Contempt as a Predictor of Loyalty and Authority Foundation Valuation…………………………………..……. 20 Trait Contempt Remains Ill-Defined and Under-Researched ...... 21 Defining and Measuring Trait Contempt: a Gap in the Literature 22 The Functional Features of Emotion …………………………………… 23 The Essential Features for the Study of Moral Emotions ……… 25 Contempt ……………………………………………………………….. 26 Conflicting Classifications of Contempt by Past Researchers …. 27 A Significant Confound: Semantic Confusion over Contempt in Participants …………………………………………………...… 28 Assessing Contempt via its Unique Facial Expression ………… 29 Defining Contempt via its Fundamental Characteristics ………. 32 Contempt’s Five Key Characteristics …………………...32 Violations of Social Standards, Expectations, or Ideals…33 A Sense of Superiority …………………………………..35 Negative Dispositional Attributions …………………… 35 Aversive and Derogatory Action Tendencies …………...36 Cold Feelings of Dislike with Psychological Distancing .36 What is a Trait Emotion? ………………………………………………..37 Defining Trait Contempt ………………………………………...39 Rationale ………………………………………………………………………...40 Testing the Internal Consistency and Cohesiveness of the Five Key Characteristics of Contempt………………..……………………………41 vi Two Indirect Methodologies for Assessing Contempt and Trait Contempt …………………………………………………………….……………...41 Empirically Testing the CAD Model’s Application to the Five Moral Foundations ……………………………………………………………...42 Study 1 …………………………………………………………………………..42 Hypotheses ……………………………………………………………………....43 Method …………………………………………………………………………..44 Participants ……………………………………………………………....44 Procedure ………………………………………………………………..44 Materials ………………………………………………………………...46 Trait Contempt Instrument ………………………………………46 Increased Awareness of Social Standard Violations Subscale ……………………………………...………… 46 Frequent Feelings of Superiority Subscale ……………...47 Increased Negative Dispositional Attributions Subscale...47 Aversive and Derogatory Action Tendencies Subscale.....47 Cold Feelings with Psychological Distance Subscale.…..48 Additional Contempt Instruments ……………………………… 48 Izard’s Trait Contempt Scale …………………………....48 Crowley’s Trait Contempt Expression Instrument ……...49 Trait Anger and Trait Disgust Scales …………………………....49 The DES Trait Anger Scale ……………………………..49 The DES Trait Disgust Scale …………………………....50 vii Moral Foundations Questionnaire ……………………………….50 Reciprocity Valuation Items …………………………….51 Demographics …………………………………………………...51 Results and Discussion……………………….………………………………….52 Data preparation ………………………………………………………....52 Exploratory Factor Analysis …………………………………………….52 Initial Principle Axis Factoring Model…………………………..53 Fixed-factor principle axis factoring models…………………….54 Hypothesis I: Testing the Construct Validity of the Trait Contempt Instrument’s Subscales …………………………………………………..54 Cold feelings and avoidant action tendencies……………………55 Cold feelings and avoidant action tendencies: Internal reliability and items dropped………………..……….…. 55 Feelings of superiority and social standard violations…………...56 Feelings of superiority and social standard violations: Internal reliability and items dropped……………………56 Derogatory action tendencies ……………………………………57 Derogatory action tendencies: Internal reliability and items dropped ……………………………………………...…..58 Psychological distancing and negative dispositional attributions..58 Psychological distancing and negative dispositional attributions: Internal reliability and items dropped………58 Summary: Reduced trait contempt instrument…………………..59 viii Hypothesis II: Do the Subscales Contribute to a Single Trait Contempt Factor? ………………………………………………………………...... 60 Confirmatory Factor Analysis.…………………………………...61 Discussion of Hypotheses I & II: The Factor Structure of the Trait Contempt Scale and Construct.………..………………………....63 Hypothesis III: Testing the Discriminant and Convergent Validity of the Comprehensive Trait Contempt Scale…………………………………...64 Results of principle components analysis………………………. 65 Limitations of the analytical strategy…………………………….67 Discussion of Hypothesis III: Convergent and Discriminant Validity…………………………………………………………..69 Hypothesis IV: Does Trait Contempt Uniquely Predict Loyalty and Authority Values? .....................................................................................70 Trait contempt as a predictor of authority values ……………….71 Trait contempt as a predictor of loyalty values…………………..71 Discussion of Hypothesis IV: Trait contempt and moral values...72 Trait emotions and the CAD model……………………...73 Trait contempt and other moral values…………………..73 Hypothesis V: Is the Omnibus Trait Contempt Instrument a Stronger Predictor of Moral Values than the Pre-existing Instruments? ……….....75 Path models.…..………………………………………………….75 Improvement over other trait contempt scales.……………..…....76 Study 2.…………………………………………………………………………..77 ix Hypotheses.………………………………………………………………………79 Method.…………………………………………………………………………..80 Participants.…………………………………………………………...….80 Procedure………………………………………………………………...81 Materials…………………………………………………………………81 Moral Scenarios.………………………………………………....81 Facial Expression Magnitude Ratings.…………………………..82 Moral Judgment Items.…………………………………………..83 Trait Emotion Instruments.……………………………………....83 Demographics.…………………………………………………...84 Results and Discussion.……………………………………………………….....84 Data Preparation.…………………………………………………………84 Hypothesis VI: Does the CAD Model Apply to the Five Moral Foundations?.…………………………………………………………….84 Repeated measures results……………………………………….85 Does contempt match the CAD pattern for loyalty and authority violations?...........................................................86 Does anger match the CAD pattern for harm, fairness, and reciprocity violations?........................................................87 Does Disgust Match the CAD Pattern for Purity Violations?.……………………………………………....88 Discussion of Hypothesis VI: Does the CAD pattern apply to the moral foundations?........................................................................89 x Hypothesis VII: Do Trait Emotions predict their Corresponding Emotion’s Expression Ratings Across all Scenario Types?........................................91
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strategies for Managing Evaluation Anxiety: Toward a Psychology of Program Evaluation
    Strategies for Managing Evaluation Anxiety: Toward a Psychology of Program Evaluation STEWART I. DONALDSON, LAURA E. GOOLER, AND MICHAEL SCRIVEN ABSTRACT Excessive evaluation anxiety (XEA) can be a destructive phenomenon in modern program eval- uation. Some of the negative consequences include: Lack of access to important information and data; compliance and cooperation problems; false reporting; effects on bias and validity; and reduced utilization of evaluation findings. If left alone, XEA can lead stakeholders to behave in ways that destroy the credibility of evaluation findings and evaluators. The purpose of this paper is to examine the sources and signs of XEA in program evaluation, and to provide practicing evaluators with strategies to prevent and manage this common problem. This example of how more than technical skills are required to conduct high quality program evaluations illustrates the need for and begins a broader discussion of the psychology of evaluation. INTRODUCTION Most people experience anxiety when their behavior or achievements are being evaluated. Whether evaluations are formal, as in the case of standardized achievement testing, or informal, such as being picked to be part of a soccer team or cheerleading squad, the experience of being evaluated, critiqued, or judged commonly results in an emotional reaction of uneasiness, uncertainty, or apprehension. In essence, many evaluative situations cause people to fear that they will be found to be deficient or inadequate by others (e.g., supervisors, funding agencies, or evaluators in the program evaluation context). The fear of the prospect of a negative evaluation is probably inherent to being human. Criticism, ridicule, contempt, embarrassment, loss of acceptability, loss of respect, and rejection are unpleasant experiences most people attempt to avoid.
    [Show full text]
  • Roles of Moral Emotions and Gender
    International Journal of Communication 14(2020), 4890–4912 1932–8036/20200005 An Examination of Information Behaviors Surrounding Controversial Sociopolitical Issues: Roles of Moral Emotions and Gender CHENG HONG California State University, Sacramento, USA WEITING TAO University of Miami, USA WAN-HSIU SUNNY TSAI University of Miami, USA BO RA YOOK Fairfield University, USA Given the emotion-laden nature and moral considerations of controversial sociopolitical issues, this study examines two key antecedents of publics’ information behaviors about controversial sociopolitical issues. We focus on the underresearched emotional dimension by investigating the effects of moral emotions induced by such issues as well as a key demographic factor, gender, on publics’ information behaviors toward such issues. Results of this study highlight the significant influence of moral emotions and expand theoretical understanding of public advocacy on highly divisive issues. Keyword: moral emotions, controversial sociopolitical issues, gender, information behaviors In today’s volatile political climate, controversial sociopolitical issues such as abortion, immigration, and LGBTQ rights have generated heated public debates and shaped public opinion. When exposed to these issues, people of different stances and levels of issue involvement tend to take, select, and give issue-related information differently (Kim & Grunig, 2011; Ni & Kim, 2009). Drawing insights from the situational theory of problem solving (STOPS; Kim & Grunig, 2011), literature on information avoidance (Sweeny, Melnyk, Miller, & Shepperd, 2010), and theories of moral emotions (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999), this study focuses on three key information behaviors—information seeking, avoidance, and forwarding—as the determinants of citizens’ engagement in civic and political conversation. This study focuses on these three behaviors for two important reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Guilt, Shame, and Grief: an Empirical Study of Perinatal Bereavement
    Guilt, Shame, and Grief: An Empirical Study of Perinatal Bereavement by Peter Barr 'Death in the sickroom', Edvard Munch 1893 A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Behavioural Sciences Faculty of Medicine University of Sydney November, 2003 Preface All of the work described in this thesis was carried out personally by the author under the auspices of the Centre for Behavioural Sciences, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney. None of the work has been submitted previously for the purpose of obtaining any other degree. Peter Barr OAM, MB BS, FRACP ii The investigator cannot truthfully maintain his relationship with reality—a relationship without which all his work becomes a well-regulated game—if he does not again and again, whenever it is necessary, gaze beyond the limits into a sphere which is not his sphere of work, yet which he must contemplate with all his power of research in order to do justice to his own task. Buber, M. (1957). Guilt and guilt feelings. Psychiatry, 20, p. 114. iii Acknowledgements I am thankful to the Department of Obstetrics and Department of Neonatology of the following hospitals for giving me permission to approach parents bereaved by stillbirth or neonatal death: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Royal Hospital for Women, Royal North Shore Hospital and Westmead Hospital. I am most grateful to Associate Professor Susan Hayes and Dr Douglas Farnill for their insightful supervision and unstinting encouragement and support. Dr Andrew Martin and Dr Julie Pallant gave me sensible statistical advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying a Discrete Emotion Perspective
    AROUSAL OR RELEVANCE? APPLYING A DISCRETE EMOTION PERSPECTIVE TO AGING AND AFFECT REGULATION SARA E. LAUTZENHISER Bachelor of Science in Psychology Ashland University May 2015 Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGY At the CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY May 2019 We hereby approve this thesis For SARA E. LAUTZENHISER Candidate for the Master of Arts in Experimental Research Psychology For the Department of Psychology And CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY’S College of Graduate Studies by __________________________ Eric Allard, Ph.D. __________________________ Department & Date __________________________ Andrew Slifkin, Ph. D. (Methodologist) __________________________ Department & Date __________________________ Conor McLennan, Ph.D. __________________________ Department & Date __________________________ Robert Hurley, Ph. D. __________________________ Department & Date Student’s Date of Defense May 10, 2019 AROUSAL OR RELEVANCE? APPLYING A DISCRETE EMOTION PERSPECTIE TO AGING AND AFFECT REGULATION SARA E. LAUTZENHISER ABSTRACT While research in the psychology of human aging suggests that older adults are quite adept at managing negative affect, emotion regulation efficacy may depend on the discrete emotion elicited. For instance, prior research suggests older adults are more effective at dealing with emotional states that are more age-relevant/useful and lower in intensity (i.e., sadness) relative to less relevant/useful or more intense (i.e., anger). The goal of the present study was to probe this discrete emotions perspective further by addressing the relevance/intensity distinction within a broader set of negative affective states (i.e., fear and disgust, along with anger and sadness). Results revealed that participants reported relatively high levels of the intended emotion for each video, while also demonstrating significant affective recovery after the attentional refocusing task.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Deep Structure of Social Affect: Attitudes, Emotions, Sentiments, and the Case of “Contempt”
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2017), Page 1 of 63 doi:10.1017/S0140525X16000352,e0 On the deep structure of social affect: Attitudes, emotions, sentiments, and the case of “contempt” Matthew M. Gervais School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402; Center for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1414 [email protected] www.matthewgervais.net Daniel M. T. Fessler Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553; Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553 [email protected] www.danielmtfessler.com Abstract: Contempt is typically studied as a uniquely human moral emotion. However, this approach has yielded inconclusive results. We argue this is because the folk affect concept “contempt” has been inaccurately mapped onto basic affect systems. “Contempt” has features that are inconsistent with a basic emotion, especially its protracted duration and frequently cold phenomenology. Yet other features are inconsistent with a basic attitude. Nonetheless, the features of “contempt” functionally cohere. To account for this, we revive and reconfigure the sentiment construct using the notion of evolved functional specialization. We develop the Attitude–Scenario–Emotion (ASE) model of sentiments, in which enduring attitudes represent others’ social-relational value and moderate discrete emotions across scenarios. Sentiments are functional networks of attitudes and emotions. Distinct sentiments, including love, respect, like, hate, and fear, track distinct relational affordances, and each is emotionally pluripotent, thereby serving both bookkeeping and commitment functions within relationships. The sentiment contempt is an absence of respect; from cues to others’ low efficacy, it represents them as worthless and small, muting compassion, guilt, and shame and potentiating anger, disgust, and mirth.
    [Show full text]
  • About Emotions There Are 8 Primary Emotions. You Are Born with These
    About Emotions There are 8 primary emotions. You are born with these emotions wired into your brain. That wiring causes your body to react in certain ways and for you to have certain urges when the emotion arises. Here is a list of primary emotions: Eight Primary Emotions Anger: fury, outrage, wrath, irritability, hostility, resentment and violence. Sadness: grief, sorrow, gloom, melancholy, despair, loneliness, and depression. Fear: anxiety, apprehension, nervousness, dread, fright, and panic. Joy: enjoyment, happiness, relief, bliss, delight, pride, thrill, and ecstasy. Interest: acceptance, friendliness, trust, kindness, affection, love, and devotion. Surprise: shock, astonishment, amazement, astound, and wonder. Disgust: contempt, disdain, scorn, aversion, distaste, and revulsion. Shame: guilt, embarrassment, chagrin, remorse, regret, and contrition. All other emotions are made up by combining these basic 8 emotions. Sometimes we have secondary emotions, an emotional reaction to an emotion. We learn these. Some examples of these are: o Feeling shame when you get angry. o Feeling angry when you have a shame response (e.g., hurt feelings). o Feeling fear when you get angry (maybe you’ve been punished for anger). There are many more. These are NOT wired into our bodies and brains, but are learned from our families, our culture, and others. When you have a secondary emotion, the key is to figure out what the primary emotion, the feeling at the root of your reaction is, so that you can take an action that is most helpful. .
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Emotions As Determinants of Third-Party Punishment: Anger, Guilt, and the Functions of Altruistic Sanctions
    Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 4, No. 7, December 2009, pp. 543–553 Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt, and the functions of altruistic sanctions Rob M. A. Nelissen∗ and Marcel Zeelenberg Tilburg University, the Netherlands Abstract Third-party punishment has recently received attention as an explanation for human altruism. Feelings of anger in response to norm violations are assumed to motivate third-party sanctions, yet there is only sparse and indirect support for this idea. We investigated the impact of both anger and guilt feelings on third-party sanctions. In two studies both emotions were independently manipulated. Results show that anger and guilt independently constitute sufficient but not necessary causes of punishment. Low levels of punishment are observed only when neither emotion is elicited. We discuss the implications of these findings for the functions of altruistic sanctions. Keywords: third-party punishment, social norms, emotions, decision-making. 1 Introduction own (Haidt, 2003). We experience feelings like empathy, anger, and guilt if we consider how others have been hurt, People often defend the interests of others. They stand wronged, or harmed (e.g., Batson, 2006; Haidt, 2003). up for their friends if someone speaks ill about them in The view that moral emotions also have functional behav- their absence. They do not tolerate a colleague being bul- ioral consequences is reflected in evolutionary hypothe- lied at work. They boycott consumer products that are sis about their adaptive value (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides, produced using child labor. Some even come to the aid 1990; Trivers, 1971). of a stranger who is being physically harassed, in spite Especially Robert Frank’s (2004) notion of emotions of obvious personal danger.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen the Bereavement Guilt Scale Li
    University of Groningen The Bereavement Guilt Scale Li, Jie; Stroebe, Margaret; Chan, Cecilia L.W.; Chow, Amy Y.M. Published in: Omega : journal of death and dying DOI: 10.1177/0030222815612309 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2017 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Li, J., Stroebe, M., Chan, C. L. W., & Chow, A. Y. M. (2017). The Bereavement Guilt Scale: Development and preliminary validation. Omega : journal of death and dying, 75(2), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222815612309 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Incidental Anger, Contempt, and Disgust on Hostile Language and Implicit Behaviors David Matsumoto1, Hyisung C
    Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2016, 46, pp. 437–452 The effects of incidental anger, contempt, and disgust on hostile language and implicit behaviors David Matsumoto1, Hyisung C. Hwang1, Mark G. Frank2 1Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University and Humintell, LLC 2University at Buffalo, State University of New York Correspondence concerning this addressed to Abstract David Matsumoto, Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Recent studies have suggested that the combination of the emotions anger- Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA. contempt-disgust (ANCODI) is associated with intergroup hostility. This study E-mail: [email protected] examined if incidental elicitation of this emotion combination causally produces hostile cognitions, language, and behaviors. Members of political groups were doi: 10.1111/jasp.12374 primed with either ANCODI, fear 1 sadness, or no emotion, and then engaged in creativity task in relation to their opponent or a non-opponent outgroup. The ANCODI mix produced more hostile cognitions, language, and implicit behaviors associated with hostility, in some cases specifically toward their opponent outgroups, than individuals primed with other emotions. Multiple mediation analyses indicated that the three emotions and their interactions mediated many of the effects. Despite the relatively robust research examining emotion and assessed. Leaders of groups that eventually committed acts of interpersonal aggression (see review in Anderson & Bush- aggression expressed words, language-based metaphorical man, 2002), there has been surprisingly little research on the appraisals, and nonverbal behaviors related to anger, con- role of emotions in intergroup aggression. Two studies in this tempt, and disgust toward their opponent outgroups; other area point to an important role for anger, and to a lesser emotions did not differentiate groups that committed acts of extent, fear.
    [Show full text]
  • Bodily Maps of Emotions
    Bodily maps of emotions Lauri Nummenmaaa,b,c,1, Enrico Glereana, Riitta Harib,1, and Jari K. Hietanend aDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Computational Science and bBrain Research Unit, O. V. Lounasmaa Laboratory, School of Science, Aalto University, FI-00076, Espoo, Finland; cTurku PET Centre, University of Turku, FI-20521, Turku, Finland; and dHuman Information Processing Laboratory, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, FI-33014, Tampere, Finland Contributed by Riitta Hari, November 27, 2013 (sent for review June 11, 2013) Emotions are often felt in the body, and somatosensory feedback independence of bodily topographies across emotions. We pro- has been proposed to trigger conscious emotional experiences. pose that consciously felt emotions are associated with culturally Here we reveal maps of bodily sensations associated with different universal, topographically distinct bodily sensations that may emotions using a unique topographical self-report method. In five support the categorical experience of different emotions. n = experiments, participants ( 701) were shown two silhouettes of Results bodies alongside emotional words, stories, movies, or facial expres- sions. They were asked to color the bodily regions whose activity We ran five experiments, with 36–302 participants in each. In they felt increasing or decreasing while viewing each stimulus. experiment 1, participants reported bodily sensations associated “ ” “ ” Different emotions were consistently associated with statistically with six basic and seven nonbasic ( complex ) emotions, as separable bodily sensation maps across experiments. These maps well as a neutral state, all described by the corresponding emo- were concordant across West European and East Asian samples. tion words. Fig. 2 shows the bodily sensation maps associated Statistical classifiers distinguished emotion-specific activation maps with each emotion.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review: Is the Emotional Expression of Contempt
    Literature Review: Is the Emotional Expression of Contempt Recognized Universally or Culturally? Julianna Phoukhao University of California, Merced Keywords: Contempt, Facial Expression, Forced Choice, Freely Labeling, Universal, Cultural, Emotion. 1 Abstract The universal facial expression of contempt is often described as one lip corner raised and tightened. This literature reviews whether or not this expression is recognized universally. After examining theories and methods, low agreement of this expression recognized as contempt was found across cultures. Evidence so far is not sufficient enough to support the unilateral lip corner as an universal expression for contempt. The expression and recognition of contempt is highly dependent on culture and context. 2 Literature Review Contempt is an emotion described as annoyance (Alvarado, 1996), ignoring or belittling a person (Fischer & Roseman, 2007), and involving another person’s negative actions and feelings of superiority (Wagner, 2000). This emotion is usually initiated when one perceives the inability to change or correct another person’s behavior. The social function of contempt is to end a relationship through rejection and exclusion (Fischer & Roseman, 2007). The concept of emotions serving functions dates back to Darwin’s days (1876) when he proposed the physiological component and facial expressions of basic emotions as innate because they serve towards a goal in one’s environment. He used his observations of evolution as evidence of the universality of emotions. Ekman (1971) challenged Darwin’s theory by conducting his own research in a remote village of Papua New Guinea. Ekman discovered emotions as innate and recognizable through facial expression. His research has also suggested the universality of a contempt expression (Ekman, 1988).
    [Show full text]
  • What Disgust Does and Does Not Do for Moral Cognition Jared Piazzaa
    What Disgust Does and Does Not Do for Moral Cognition Jared Piazzaa, Justin F. Landyb, Alek Chakroffc Liane Youngd, Emily Wassermand a Lancaster University, Department of Psychology b University of Chicago Booth School of Business cCharlie Finance Co., San Francisco, CA dBoston College, Psychology Department 2 1. Introduction Disgust is typically characterized as a negative emotion associated with the rejection of distasteful or contaminating objects (Rozin and Fallon 1987). The physiological aspects of disgust involve nausea and loss of appetite, and the bodily expression of disgust includes behaviors (e.g., gagging, vomiting) designed to orally block or expel noxious substances (Ekman and Friesen 1971; Royzman, Leeman and Sabini 2008; Rozin, Haidt and McCauley 2008; Yoder, Widen and Russell 2016). The canonical elicitors of disgust are well documented: many people report feeling nauseous or sick at the sight or smell of oral contaminants (e.g., rotten food, bodily waste) and/or disease vectors (e.g., blood, skin maladies, sexual fluids, certain animals; Curtis, Aunger and Rabie, 2004; Haidt, McCauley and Rozin, 1994; Olatunji et al. 2007). It is uncontroversial that disgust can also be evoked in the context of a moral offense. What remains controversial is disgust’s role or relevance within a moral context. When Armin Meiwes, the Rotenburg Cannibal, was discovered to have eaten the severed penis of his voluntary victim, before killing him and consuming his flesh over the next ten months, the story of this crime undoubtedly aroused disgust (and horror) in many of us. The relevant question is not whether we felt disgust about this crime—for most of us, human penis is not on the menu, and the thought of Meiwes’ preferred cuisine is deeply distasteful.
    [Show full text]