*..,.,. 1), 2), 3) 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9. /, /, / 2 (two alternative forced choice task).,. (nonlinear data fitting), (point o

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "*..,.,. 1), 2), 3) 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9. /, /, / 2 (two alternative forced choice task).,. (nonlinear data fitting), (point o"

해효 빈
5 years ago
Views:

1 *..,.,. 1), 2), 3) 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9. /, /, / 2 (two alternative forced choice task).,. (nonlinear data fitting), (point of subjective equality: PSE) (precision)., - 0.5, , ,,.,. * 2016 ( ) [NRF-2013S1A3A ]. 1. :,, (46241) 63 2 ( ) dhlee@pusan.ac.kr

2 .,. (facial expression),.. (Ekman, 1993; Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Izard, 1994) (Park & Kim, 2015).,. Uchida, Townsend, Markus Bergsieker(2009). Uchida (2009)?,,,. Uchida (2009). Uchida (2009) (Lee, Choi, & Cho, 2012; Masuda et al., 2008).,.,?? (crowd perception) (Haberman & Whitney, 2007, 2009; Yamanashi Leib et al., 2012; Yang, Yoon, Chong, & Oh, 2013). Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009),, (ensemble representation).,,,,

3 . (prosopagnosia) Yamanashi Leib (2012), (ensemble coding). Yang (2013). Yang (2013) Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009),. Yang (2013) Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009),,. (point of subjective equality: PSE) (precision). (social anxiety level),. Yang (2013),..,.. Barsäde Gibson(1998) (group emotion),.,,, (Parkinson et al., 2005). Barsäde Gibson (2012), (bottom-up), (emotional contagion).

4 , (Kelly, 2001; Magee & Tiedens, 2006).... (Niedenthal & Brauer, 2011), (Boiger & Mesquita, 2012).,.,., 45%, 55%,?? Haberman Whitney(2007, 2009). 45%?? Yang (2013) 0.54, 0.59.,,.?, (emotional valence),.,.,,.

5 ,,. 8 1) -, 2) -, 3) - 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9., /, /, /. Yang (2013) 0.1 (100ms),, 3. (ensemble representation),,.. (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS, Watson et al., 1988),,, (, ). 153, ( :13, :38; :20.9 ), - 49 ( :11, :38; : 20.5 ), - 51 ( :12, :39; : 20.3 ) (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS). Watson, Clark Tellegen(1988) (the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS) (Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2003). Watson (1988) 10 10, 0~4. Lee (2003)

(alert), 9 10. Lee (2003) (Cronbach's ɑ).84.87, (Cronbach's ɑ).81.83.,. 11. Cronbach's α.93.,, r=.498, p <.001,

6 (alert), Lee (2003) (Cronbach's ɑ).84.87, (Cronbach's ɑ) ,. 11. Cronbach's α.93.,, r=.498, p <.001,, r = -.339, p <.001. (The Revised Oxford Happiness Scale). Hills Argyle(2002) - (The Revised Oxford Happiness Scale) ,.,.. (Kim, Choi, & Cho, 2011) FACES (Ebner et al., 2010).,.

7 . 24, 96,, x50mm. 8, 4:4. 1) -, 2) -, 3) -, 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 9 (Figure 1 ) (9x16). 6,. (PANAS),. 60cm, 8 2 (two alternative forced choice; 2AFC). E-prime 2 professional, 19 ( : 1290x1024). (+) 500ms 8 Figure ,,., /, /, / ( ) 6, ,, -, -, -

8 . X, Y, (Figure 2). 2 (cumulative distribution function: CDF), (data fitting). (parameters) (μ) (σ), 50% (point of subjective equality: PSE), (precision) ( ). GraphPad Prism 7.0(Motulsky, 1999), (least squares method)..,.,.,., (R 2 < 0.5),. - 2, ( 5% ). 3., PANAS (Table 1).,, ( : F(2, 150) = 1.77, p =.174; : F(2, 150) = 0.19, p =.981; Conditions Positive Affect PANAS Negative Affect Oxford Happiness Scale Neutral-Happy (n=51) 15.51(5.84) 11.27(6.62) (12.89) Neutral-Sad (n=49) 16.10(5.66) 11.02(6.46) (17.27) Happy-Sad (n=51) 17.66(6.40) 11.13(6.37) (16.73)

9 : F(2, 150) = 1.33, p =.269).,, F(1, 148) = 60.60, p <.001, (Lee, Kim, & Lee, 2003),, F(2, 148) =.987 p =.375. Figure 2,. Figure 2a b - -, Figure 2c-1 c-2 -.,

10 Figure 2c-1 c-2. Figure 2, ( 0.0 -> 0.5 <- 1.0 ), F(8, 1184) = 86.39, p <.001, -,, F(2, 148) = 2.98, p =.054. Figure 2,. Figure 3 Table 2., -, ( 50% ), (PSE) 0.475(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.460,.489]), 0.5, -.526(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.513,.540]) 0.5 (Figure 3 1a, 1b)., ( ) -.472(.14), -.534(.12), -.508(.07),, F(2, 142) = 3.779, p =.025. (Tukey, HSD), - - (d =.31 p =.019), (SE ±.005, 95% CI [.493,.512]).496(SE ±.005, 95% CI [.487,.506]) 0.5. (SD) -.248(SE ±.010, 95% CI [.228,.269]), -.254(SE ±.009, 95% CI [.236,.274]). -,.215(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.201,.228]),.215(SE ±.007, 95% CI [.202,.229]), -, (.11), -.234(.10), -.199(.09), F(2, 142) = 1.686, p =.189. Figure

12 conditions x(ratio) y(response) Mean(PSE) SD(precision) R 2 Neutral-Happy (n=51) Happy faces Happy.475 [.46,.49].248 [.23,.27].84 Neutral-Sad (n=49) Sad faces Sad.526 [.51,.54].255 [.24,.27].86 Sad-Happy (n=51) Happy faces Happy.502 [.49,.51].215 [.20,.23].92 Sad-Happy (n=51) Sad faces Sad.496 [.49,.51].215 [.20,.23].92. Figure 3.2a, 50% (, 8 4 ), ( )., Figure 3.3a, 50% (, 8 4 ), ( ).,. Table 3,. - PANAS, r = -.303, p =.034,, r = -.314, p =.028.,. -, 0.1, r =.240, p = PSE PANAS PA score PANAS NA score Oxford Happiness scale PSE of Neutral-Happy condition -.303(.034) * -.067(.649) -.314(028) * PSE of Neutral-Sad condition.192(.186) -.096(.510).240(.097) PSE of Sad-Happy condition -.017(.907).006(.966) -397(.004) * p <.10, * p <.05

13 ( ),,, r =.397, p =.004( )..,.., (, ),.,,, ( ). (4:4,, 0.5),.,.,. Yang (2013) /. -,,.,. - -,., - -,

14 .., (, Haberman & Whitney, 2007, 2009; Yamanashi Leib et al., 2012).,.,,.,.,,.,,.,. (anger superiority effect) (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Hansen & Hansen, 1988; Yang, Kim, & Oh, 2006),.. (mood congruency effect) (Bouhuys, Bloem, & Groothuis, 1995; Bower, 1981; Niedenthal, Halberstadt, Margolin, & Innes-Ker, 2000)., Bouhuys, Bloem Groothuis(1995), ( vs ),,

15 .,,..,..,..,, (Becker et al., 2007).,.,.,,.,.,.,, ( ).,. Abele, A., & Petzold, P. (1994). How does mood operate in an impression formation task? An information integration approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1),

16 Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: a meta-analytic study. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), Barsäde, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1(82), Barsäde, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2012). Group affect its influence on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Blackwell, K. C., & Smith, D. M. (2007). The confounded nature of angry men and happy women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2), Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2012). The construction of emotion in interactions, relationships, and cultures. Emotion Review, 4(3), Bouhuys, A. L., Bloem, G. M., & Groothuis, T. G. (1995). Induction of depressed and elated mood by music influences the perception of facial emotional expressions in healthy subjects. Journal of Affective Disorders, 33(4), Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36(2), Ebner, N. C., Riediger, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2010). FACES-A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and Validation. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48(4), Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2007). Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology, 17(17), Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2009). Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), Hansen, C. H., & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: an anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), Hills, P., & Argyle, M. (2002). The Oxford Happiness Questionnaire: A compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(7), Innes-Ker, Å., & Niedenthal, P. M. (2002). Emotion concepts and emotional states in social judgment and categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and Universal Facial

17 Expressions: Evidence from Developmental and Cross-Cultural Research. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), Kelly, J. R. (2001). Mood and Emotion in Groups, in M. A. Hogg and R. S. Tindale(Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes (pp ). UK, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Kim, M. W., Choi, J. S., & Cho, Y. S. (2011). The Korea University Facial Expression Collection(KUFEC) and Semantic Differential Ratings of Emotion. The Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 30(4), Lee, H., Kim, E., & Lee, M. (2003). A validation study of Korea Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: The PANAS Scales. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology 22(4), Lee, T. H., Choi, J. S., & Cho, Y. S. (2012). Context modulation of facial emotion perception differed by individual difference. PLoS One, 7(3), e Magee, J. C., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Emotional ties that bind: The roles of valence and consistency of group emotion in inferences of cohesiveness and common fate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P. C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S., & Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008). Placing the face in context: cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3), Motulsky, H. (1999). Analyzing data with GraphPad prism. GraphPad Software Incorporated. Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, Niedenthal, P. M., Halberstadt, J. B., Margolin, J., & Innes Ker, Å. H. (2000). Emotional state and the detection of change in facial expression of emotion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), Park, T. J. & Kim, J. H. (2015). Working Memory Load Effect on Negative Emotional Face Processing Depends on Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(1), Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (2005). Emotion in social relations: Cultural, Group, and Interpersonal Processes. New York: Psychology Press. Uchida, Y., Townsend, S. S., Markus, H. R., & Bergsieker, H. B. (2009). Emotions as within or between people? Cultural variation in lay theories of emotion expression and inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), Yamanashi Leib, A., Puri, A. M., Fischer, J., Bentin, S., Whitney, D., & Robertson, L.

18 (2012). Crowd perception in prosopagnosia. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), Yang, J. W., Kim, J. H., & Oh, K. J. (2006). Selective Attentional Bias for Negative Emotional Faces in Social Anxiety: Comparison of Three Age Groups. The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(1), Yang, J. W., Yoon, K. L., Chong, S. C., & Oh, K. J. (2013). Accurate but pathological: Social anxiety and ensemble coding of emotion. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(3), : : :

19 Analysis of Response Characteristics in the Judgment of Emotion for a Group of Emotional Faces Sewon Kim Hyun Jung Shin Bia Kim Donghoon Lee Department of Psychology, Pusan National University Facial emotion is an important social cue for inferring emotional states of other people. Psychological research using facial emotions has focused on the perception of individual emotional faces. However, in the ordinary life we may infer a group level emotion from multiple faces in a group, but little has been known about what kinds of factors influence this process. In the current study, we investigate the response characteristics of the group emotion judgment for a group of emotional faces which are composed of individual faces in different emotional categories with different ratios. The group facial emotion stimuli are composed of 1) neutral and happy faces, 2) neutral and sad faces, and 3) sad and happy faces in the 8:0, 7:1, 6:2, 5:3, 4:4, 3:5, 2:6, 1:7, 0:8 ratios. By this way, the level of emotional intensity of the group is manipulated into 9 steps. Participants in each condition performed a two alternative forced choice task by judging the overall emotion of a group facial stimulus into one of two response categories (e.g., Neutral-Happy). Analysis of response times for the judgment of the group emotion showed that the response time for judging the overall emotion was slow down as faces in the two different emotion categories mixed together with a similar ratio. The response ratio data were analyzed by a nonlinear data fitting procedure using a psychometric function, and the point of subjective equality (PSE) and the precision of each participant in each condition were estimated. In results, the mean PSE in the Sad-Happy condition was almost same as a hypothetical mean (0.5) and the precision was high. On the contrary, the mean PSE of the happy response in the Neutral-Happy condition was lower than 0.5 but the mean PSE of the sad response in the Neutral-Sad condition was higher than 0.5. Moreover, participants PSE of the happy response was negatively correlated with participants positive emotion levels as well as happiness scores, whereas participants PSEs of the sad response were positively correlated with participants happiness scores. These results imply that the judgment of emotion for a group of faces is influenced by bottom-up factors such as how the group is comprised of what kinds of emotional faces, and by top-down factors such as observers emotional states and traits. Key words : Group emotion, Facial expression, Crowd preception, Psychometric Function, Point of Subjective Equality (PSE)

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

,,.. 400,,,,,,.,,, -, -, -., 3.. :, Tel : 010-9540-0640, E-mail : sunney05@hanmail.net ,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012).