Society for Affective Science 3rd Annual Conference • March 17-19, 2016 • Hyatt Regency Hotel • Chicago, IL Contents: Thematic Flash Talks ........................................................................................................................... 2 Poster Session A .................................................................................................................................13 Poster Session B ................................................................................................................................30 Poster Session C ................................................................................................................................47 Author Index ........................................................................................................................................64 Thematic Flash Talks: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Saturday, March 19, 2016 4:30 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Poster Schedule: Poster Session A Thursday, March 17, 2016 4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m ................................................................................................Assemble your poster 5:00 p.m.-8:15 p.m ...........................................................................................................Poster viewing 6:45 p.m.-8:15 p.m ...........................................................................................................Author present 8:15 p.m.-9:15 p.m .............................................................................................. Take down your poster Poster Session B Friday, March 18, 2016 12:00 noon-1:00 p.m .............................................................................................Assemble your poster 1:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m ...........................................................................................................Poster viewing 5:30 p.m.-7:00 p.m ...........................................................................................................Author present 7:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m .............................................................................................. Take down your poster Poster Session C Saturday, March 19, 2016 12:00 noon-1:00 p.m .............................................................................................Assemble your poster 1:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m ...........................................................................................................Poster viewing 2:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m ...........................................................................................................Author present 4:15 p.m.-5:15 p.m .............................................................................................. Take down your poster 1 Society for Affective Science 2016 Annual Conference • Thematic Flash Talks Thematic Flash Talks DECISION-MAKING IN ORGAN DONATION: AN Friday, March 18, 2016 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DISGUST AND HEALTH ANXIETY 8:30 AM - 9:30 AM Nathan S. Consedine, Alysha Simonsen University of Auckland Descriptors: disgust, decision-making, organ donation Decision Science Despite high rates of donor registration, there is a worldwide shortage of organs. Making matters more complex is the fact that the decision to donate is often made THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES EMOTIONS SCALE (NTES): by family following accidents. Given the physical realities of donation and the fact that decisions are needed during times of shock, it is not surprising that emotional MEASURING EMOTIONS ELICITED BY SOFTWARE UPDATE responses are implicated in decisions. However, prior work has been cross-sectional, WARNINGS leading to difficulties in interpretation and in ascertaining which specific emotions Ross W. Buck, Mohammad Khan, Michael Fagan are causally relevant. In this study, 99 participants completed baseline measures University of Connecticut before being randomized to disgust, health anxiety or control conditions and rating the odds of donating in scenarios in which the morality of the prospective recipient Descriptors: emotions, warning, decision was systematically varied. As expected, analysis showed donation likelihood was lower for proxy versus self donations (p < .01) and was lower for less likeable (p < The importance of emotions on decisions is now acknowledged, and it is .01) or more accountable recipients (p < .01); an interaction suggested the effects of recognized that emotions can both enhance and undermine effective decision making. accountability were only relevant among more likeable recipients (p < .01). Persons However, decision literature has typically defined emotions simply in term of positive with more negative attitudes gave lower ratings (p < .01) and their ratings were more and negative valence. But, closer consideration shows that a variety of positive, impacted by experimental manipulations (p < .01) and recipient characteristics. While negative, individualistic, and prosocial emotions are actually involved in decisions. cross-sectional data implicate emotions in the decision to register, this is the first The present study explored emotions reported when pop-up warnings appear during experimental study to test the role of specific emotions. In addition to demonstrating computer use. Such warnings are intended to protect the user, but they are typically that disgust and health anxiety can be discriminantly elicited in decision-making ignored, often with reports of annoyance. The NTES assessed emotions associated research, the study offers preliminary targets for intervention. with receiving warnings of risks associated with failing to update software, both in relaxed online sessions (surfing the Web) and involving time and attention pressures (working on an important project under time pressure). We recruited 400 participants via Mechanical Turk (209 female, 190 male). Relaxed-Pressured or Pressured- Relaxed conditions, and 45 emotions, were presented in random order by Qualtrics TO EXPLORE OR EXPLOIT? YOUR AMYGDALA WILL survey software. Results revealed that with the difficult task, respondents reported DECIDE significantly more feelings of being Distraught (.163), Anxious (.128), Nervous (.114), Vincent D. Costa1, Olga Dal Monte2, Elisabeth A. Murray1, Bruno B. Averbeck1 Suspicious (.108), etc.; and fewer feelings of Security (.078), Confidence (.024), etc. 1National Institute of Mental Health, 2Yale University Males reported higher feelings on 21 emotions, including feeling Arrogant (.032), Lonely (.021), Respectful (.019), Cared For (.014), and Humiliated (.011). Figures Descriptors: amygdala, dopamine, reinforcement learning are effect sizes (etas). Greater apparent emotional involvement on the part of males Traditional views of amygdala emphasize its role in learning the motivational is noteworthy. significance of stimuli to coordinate emotional responses. The contribution of the amygdala to reinforcement learning (RL) within the context of choice behavior is less clear, especially relative to other brain regions regarded as important for RL, such as the ventral striatum (VS). In the present study we tested the contribution of the PREDECISIONAL COHERENCE SHIFTING REGULATES amygdala and VS to RL, by comparing the choice behavior of rhesus macaques with EMOTION IN MULTIATTRIBUTE DECISIONS bilateral excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala (n=4) or VS (n=3) to a group of intact Stephanie M. Carpenter1, J. Frank Yates2, Stephanie D. Preston2, Lydia Chen2 controls (n=4), in a two-armed bandit task. We fit temporal difference RL models to 1University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2University of Michigan the animals’ choices, allowing us to quantify learning rates and how consistently the animals chose the higher value option (inverse temperature). Results indicated that Descriptors: decision making, emotion regulation the lesions had different effects on learning from reward receipt versus omission (Group x Feedback, F(2,223)=18.2, p<.0001). Monkeys with amygdala lesions, Almost all real-life decisions entail attribute conflict; every serious choice compared to controls, were less sensitive to positive feedback and showed increased alternative is better than its competitors on some attribute dimensions but worse on sensitivity to reward omission. While learning deficits in animals with striatal lesions others. An important question is how people manage the conflict inherent in these were solely due to decreased sensitivity to reward receipt. Both lesion groups chose types of difficult decisions. In predecisional coherence shifting, the decision maker the higher valued option less consistently than controls, and the amygdala group gradually shifts the perceived desirability and importance of the conflicting attributes was less accurate than the striatal group (Group, F(2,211)=70.6, p<.0001). These until one alternative is seen as dominant over its competitors, or nearly so, before results raise important questions about which neural circuits are critical for RL and a decision is made. Our research demonstrates that multiattribute decisions are suggests the amygdala plays a more important role in this process than the ventral aversive and that predecisional coherence shifting regulates emotional discomfort. striatum. Across four studies, inducing greater attribute conflict generated aversive emotions (Study 1; N = 247, F(4, 242) = 2.78, p = .027; high-vs-low conflict: t(242) = 3.05, p FUNDING: The work was funded by the NIMH DIRP. = .003) and skin conductance responses decreased in participants who coherence shifted (Study 2; N = 57,