Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2016
-
(2016): The Relationship Between Sociomoral Disgust and Physical Disgust. Investigation of Facial Affect in Response to Purity and Fairness Violations. In: NEUROETHICS 9 (2)
Abstract: There has been much recent speculation regarding the relationship between sociomoral disgust, which refers to disgust elicited by moral violations, and the type of disgust elicited by physical stimuli such a rotten food. This study investigated whether there were similar facial expressions of disgust elicited by two types of moral transgressions and physically disgusting behaviors. This study also explored whether facial muscle activity would reflect spontaneous person affect knowledge retrieval after participants were presented with minimal information regarding a person's face and behavior. The two types of moral transgressions were fairness and purity moral transgressions, which are two out of the five moral foundations (purity, fairness, harm, authority, ingroup) in the Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt and Joseph, 2004). Facial muscle activity related to disgust (levator labii) and anger as well as overall negative affect (corrugator supercilii) was recorded while participants associated faces with behavioral statements. The same facial muscle activity was also recorded while participants were shown faces that were previously associated with behavioral statements in a later task. Facial disgust reactions were similar in response to physically disgusting behaviors as well as purity transgressions, but fairness transgressions did not elicit significant facial reactions. Faces that had been previously associated with moral transgressions, physically disgusting, or neutral behaviors also did not evoke facial disgust, showing no transfer of person affective trait knowledge, contrary to previous neuroimaging findings (Todorov et al., 2007). These results suggest that purity vs. fairness transgressions differentially elicit facial disgust reactions, with only purity transgressions eliciting facial disgust activity. These results suggest that these two domains of moral transgressions differ in their similarity to the processing of physical disgust stimuli, consistent with theoretical views that posit that only some moral violations have a basis in the basic emotion of disgust.
Keywords: Bewertung von sozialem Verhalten (/sozialer Angemessenheit), corrugator supercilii, Ekel, Emotionaler Zustand, Fairness, Gesicht und assoziierte Zuschreibungen, Gesichtsausdruck, Gestik/Mimik, levator labii, Mimik, Moral foundations theory by Haidt and Joseph, purity transgressing, (Un)fairness, Wut 2003
-
(2003): Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion. In: Psychological science 14 (6), S. 644-647. DOI: 10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1479.x
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14629700 Abstract: There is good reason to believe that gaze direction and facial displays of emotion share an information value as signals of approach or avoidance. The combination of these cues in the analysis of social communication, however, has been a virtually neglected area of inquiry. Two studies were conducted to test the prediction that direct gaze would facilitate the processing of facially communicated approach-oriented emotions (e.g., anger and joy), whereas averted gaze would facilitate the processing of facially communicated avoidance-oriented emotions (e.g., fear and sadness). The results of both studies confirmed the central hypothesis and suggest that gaze direction and facial expression are combined in the processing of emotionally relevant facial information.
Keywords: abgewendeter Blick, Affect, Angst, Blick / Gaze, Blickkontakt, Blickrichtung, Emotionaler Zustand, Emotionen, Facial Expression, Female, Fixation, Ocular, Freude, Gesicht und assoziierte Zuschreibungen, Gesichtsausdruck, Gestik/Mimik, Humans, Male, theory of mind, Traurigkeit, Visual Perception, Wut 2000
-
(2000): The concept of anger. Universal or culture specific?. In: Psychopathology 33 (4), S. 159-170. DOI: 10.1159/000029139
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10867573 Abstract: I will suggest that the English word 'anger' and its counterparts in diverse languages of the world are based on concepts of anger that have a great deal of complexity. This conceptual complexity derives from several sources: (1) the metaphors and metonymies that apply to the concepts in various languages; (2) the prototypes of anger that people share in these cultures, and (3) the many different senses that the word anger and its counterparts have in different languages. We can ask: Are there any universal aspects of the concept(s) of anger? On the basis of linguistic evidence from English, Chinese, Japanese, Hungarian, Zulu and Wolof, I will suggest that there are, but I will also claim that some of the aspects are culture specific. This raises the further important question of why there is both universality and culture specificity in the conceptualization of this emotion. At stake is the issue of which of the following two contradictory claims is valid: (1) that anger is conceptualized in the same way universally, or (2) that anger is a social construction and thus varies considerably from culture to culture. I will propose a compromise view, which can be called 'body-based social constructionism', that enables us to see anger and its counterparts as both universal and culture specific.
- <<
- <
- 1