From Desire Coherence and Belief Coherence to Emotions: a Constraint Satisfaction Model
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
From desire coherence and belief coherence to emotions: A constraint satisfaction model Josef Nerb University of Freiburg Department of Psychology 79085 Freiburg, Germany http://www.psychologie.uni-freiburg.de/signatures/nerb/ [email protected] Abstract The model is able to account for the elicitation of discrete emotions using these five criteria. In the DEBECO archi- Appraisal theory explains the elicitation of emotional reactions as a consequence of subjective evaluations tecture, the five criteria evolve out of three basic principles: based on personal needs, goals, desires, abilities, and belief coherence, desire coherence and belief-desire coher- beliefs. According to the appraisal approach, each emo- ence. Based on these principles, which are all well sup- tion is caused by a characteristic pattern of appraisals, ported by empirical evidence from psychological research, and different emotions are associated with different ap- DEBECO also allows the representation of two elementary praisals. This paper presents the DEBECO architec- types of goals: approach goals and avoidance goals. The ture, a computational framework for modeling the ap- DEBECO architecture is implemented as a parallel con- praisal process. DEBECO is based upon three core straint satisfaction network and is an extension of Thagard’s coherence principles: belief coherence, desire coher- HOTCO model (Thagard, 2000, 2003; Thagard & Nerb, ence and belief-desire coherence. These three coher- 2002). ence mechanisms allow two elementary types of goals to be represented: approach and avoidance goals. By Within DEBECO, emotions are seen as valenced reac- way of concrete simulation examples, it is shown how tions to events, persons or objects, with their particular na- discrete emotions such as anger, pride, sadness, shame, ture being determined by the way in which the eliciting situ- surprise, relief and disappointment emerge out of these ation is construed (cf. Ortony et al., 1988). DEBECO is not principles. The framework allows the integration of a concerned with how desires arise or how beliefs are acquired variety of empirical findings about cognitive emotional in the first place, but rather with how desires and beliefs are congruence effects and shows how phenomena as di- integrated while a situation is being construed. Furthermore, verse as reasoning, belief updating, or eliciting of emo- DEBECO does not deal with physiological or neurological tional reactions can be subsumed under the same basic influences on emotions or with the expression of emotions. underlying processes. Introduction Basic principles of the appraisal process Emotions are not simple reactions to situational stimuli. Like others (e.g. Smith & Kirby, 2000), we assume that the Highly similar situations can elicit different emotions in a very core process in appraisal is a continuously operating, person over time and different situations can give rise to preattentive mechanism that checks whether newly acquired similar emotional reactions. Instead of considering emo- beliefs are congruent or incongruent with pre-existing be- tion as a fixed response to one’s objective circumstances, liefs and whether newly acquired desires are congruent or appraisal theory, a major theoretical perspective in emotion incongruent with pre-existing desires research, explains the elicitation of emotional reactions as Translating these mechanisms into a parallel constraint a consequence of subjective evaluations based on personal satisfaction network where nodes of the network represent needs, goals, desires, abilities and beliefs. These evalua- propositions or concepts is straightforward. Each node has tions or appraisals of a situation are seen as crucial for both two activation values, representing (a) evaluation, desire or the elicitation and the differentiation of emotions. Summa- valence and (b) the expectancy or belief. Nodes are con- rizing and integrating this line of research, Ellsworth and nected by excitatory or inhibitory links representing positive Scherer (2003) conclude that most theorists agree upon five and negative relationships between propositions. Activation dimensions of emotion antecedent appraisal criteria: goal- spreads between connected nodes in the network until the conduciveness, intrinsic pleasantness, belief, novelty and activations of all nodes asymptote or “relax” into a state that agency. This paper will introduce a computational model satisfies the constraints among the nodes. of the appraisal process called DEBECO (abbreviation of Desire-Belief-Coherence). Psychological roots of coherence principles Copyright c 2004, American Association for Artificial Intelli- The three principles, belief coherence, desire coherence and gence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. belief-desire coherence, can be traced back to early theories regarding cognitive emotional consistency in social psychol- tion of the activations of the units to which it is linked and ogy, in particular McGuire’s dynamic model of thought sys- the strength (positive or negative) of these links. Updating tems (1999 for an overview) and the psycho-logic model of happens recurrently in cycles until such systems enter stable Abelson and Rosenberg (e.g., Rosenberg & Abelson, 1960). states in which activations of all units cease to change from McGuire’s theory conceptualizes thought systems as con- one cycle to the other; this is called settling. In this state the sisting of a list of propositions with two attributes, one being overall consistency or coherence of the network is achieved. desirability (evaluation dimension) and the other being like- In DEBECO, three different pathways of activation ex- lihood of occurrence (expectancy dimension). These two change can model the three coherence principles mentioned dimensions express how much the content of a proposition above: (1) activation spreads between two nodes that both is liked and how much it is believed in. McGuire’s model represent belief values (belief coherence); (2) activation assumes that changes in any one of these dimensions of a spreads between two nodes that both represent valences (de- proposition can generate changes in other related proposi- sire coherence); and (3) activation spreads within one node tions according to a “probabilogical” consistency tendency between the belief part and the desire part (belief-desire co- that approximates the principles of logic, and a hedonic con- herence). sistency process that allows motivational inclinations to in- The literature provides numerous examples for the use of fluence reasoning. The thought system is seen as dynamic, constraint networks in belief updating, that is, the spread- meaning that a change that is directly induced in one part ing of activation along the first pathway (Holyoak & Si- of the system results in compensatory adjustments in remote mon, 1999; Thagard, 1989, 2000). Likewise, there is am- parts of the system. Together, these assumptions imply that ple psychological evidence for the spreading of desire or a person’s evaluative and expectancy judgments on a topic “sentiment” (Heider, 1958; Rosenberg & Abelson, 1960; will tend to be assimilated towards one another (McGuire, Thagard, 2003) and the interaction of belief and desirabil- 1999, p. 190): ity (McGuire, 1999). I postulate that causality flows in both directions, re- Recent support for a desire-belief interaction comes flecting both a “wishful thinking” tendency such that from findings within Behavioral Decision Theory, where people bring their expectations in line with their de- probability-outcome interaction effects are found when the sires, and a “rationalization” tendency such that they outcomes of decisions (Rottenstreich & Hsee, 2001) or the bring desires in line with expectations. targets of judgments are affectively rich (Slovic, Finucane, The psycho-logic model of Abelson and Rosenberg as- Peters, & MacGregor, 2002). These findings are particularly sumes mental representations of cognitive elements and pos- crucial because both expected utility and prospect theory itive, negative and indifferent relations between these enti- assume strict independence of probability (belief) and out- ties (Rosenberg & Abelson, 1960). Pairs of elements con- come (desire). The mechanisms proposed in DEBECO aim nected by relations are called cognitive units or bands. In ad- at finding a state of activations within the network that max- dition, elements have affect-arousing significance and bands imizes belief coherence, desire coherence and belief-desire can be balanced, consistent and stable, or imbalanced, in- coherence. consistent and unstable. A band is stable when (a) two con- cepts of identical affects are believed to be positively related Updating of desires and beliefs: Details or (b) two concepts having opposite affects are believed to be negatively related. Conversely, instable bands are those in which (a) two concepts of identical affects are negatively Let beli and desi denote the belief and desire values of related or (b) two concepts of opposite affects are positively a node i. The updating function of the belief parts of a related. Achieving affective or “hedonic” balance is clearly a node is the standard activation rule for constraint satisfac- constraint satisfaction problem. It should be noted here how- tion network (see McClelland and Rumelhart, 1988; Tha- ever, that detecting and fixing such inconsistencies within gard, 2000): large structures was not possible before appropriate compu- tational tools became available