1 / 13

“Ekman versus Scherer”

“Ekman versus Scherer”. or “What is important to recognize/express emotion?” (Selected GERG studies directed by Susanne kaiser). :p. vs. Facial expression. 2 theoretical approaches: “Discrete emotions” (Ekman, 1992; Ekman & Frisen, 1975: EMFACS)

owen
Télécharger la présentation

“Ekman versus Scherer”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Ekman versus Scherer” or“What is important torecognize/express emotion?” (Selected GERG studies directed by Susanne kaiser)

  2. :p vs

  3. Facial expression 2 theoretical approaches: • “Discrete emotions” (Ekman, 1992; Ekman & Frisen, 1975: EMFACS) • “Appraisal theory” of emotion (Scherer, 1984, 1992)

  4. 2 theories, 2 sets of predictions:the example of Anger (EMFACS)

  5. Cumulative effect of appraisals on facial muscles Novelty Unpleasantness Goal-obstructiveness High control / High power

  6. Cues manipulation: in synthesis • Cues are manipulated (synthetized faces) acc to EMFACS predictions and to appraisal patterns predictions • Effects of different configurations (static and dynamic) on emotional attributions have been assessed by Wehrle et al. (2000)

  7. Cues manipulation: in observation • Cognitive appraisals are “manipulated” in the context of a computer game • Effects of different appraisals on facial expressions have been reported in Kaiser, Wehrle, & Schmidt (1998) • Indications that basic emotions are not sufficiently differentiated to account for facial expressions

  8. Facial appraisal patterns (1) Report: “Anger” Appraisal: “Unfair”

  9. Facial appraisal patterns (2) Report: “Anger” Appraisal: “Blame someone (who did it on purpose)”

  10. Facial appraisal patterns (3) Report: “Anger” Appraisal: “Blame the other AND oneself”

  11. Conclusions (1) • Different expressions for the same basic emotion • Individual differences in expressivity are large • Similar observations can be made for • Vocal expressions • Physiological reactions • Gestures, postures

  12. Next steps • Integration of multiple channels • One attempt for voice + physiology (Johnstone & Scherer, 1999) • Especially important for • Better undestanding single channels • Realism in building ECAs • Use of ECAs to address available theories

  13. Thank you!

More Related