自我意识情绪:聚焦于自我的道德情绪研究

自我意识情绪是人们在社会交往中根据一定的价值标准评价自我或被他人评价时产生的情绪,也是个体根据道德自我认同标准,比较不同情境下的行为或行为倾向时产生的道德情绪。自我意识情绪以自我认知为基础,具有独特性。其中,内疚、羞耻、尴尬以及自豪和道德行为之间存在着千丝万缕的联系,并且有反馈、激发动机以及协调人际行为等道德功能。因此极有必要开展自我意识情绪的本土化研究,为建设和谐社会提供理论支持和实验根据。     

内疚的认知和情绪活动及其脑区调控

内疚是个体做出危害他人的行为或违反道德准则之后产生的良心上的反省, 对行为负有责任的一种负性体验。内疚在道德规范和人际社会中具有重要的作用。研究者主要采取自我报告范式、情境模拟范式、过失范式和经济博弈范式考察内疚的发生发展及其功能。近年来, 研究者尝试揭示内疚脑机制, 研究发现内疚主要激活前额叶皮层和脑岛等脑区, 前额叶可能与内疚的认知成分相关, 而脑岛主要与内疚的情绪成分相关。未来的研究需要采用多种技术手段进一步考察内疚的认知神经机制。     

道德情绪的特点、发展及其对行为的影响

道德情绪是在个体根据社会规范或行为准则对行为进行评价时所产生的情绪,可以根据不同的标准进行划分;道德情绪中的自我意识情绪需要自我意识和自我评价等过程的参与,其发展也受众多内外因素的影响;道德情绪具有重要的社会功能,行为和神经科学层面的研究都表明道德情绪对于个体的道德行为及相关因素有重要影响;不同的道德情绪对行为的影响存在差异,且现有的相关研究结果仍存在争议;未来研究应该加强关于道德情绪对道德行为影响的内在机制及脑科学研究,同时还应较多关注道德情绪及道德行为在较小儿童上的发展及实际应用。     

自豪的结构、测量、表达与识别

自豪是个体把一个成功事件或积极事件归因于自身能力或努力的结果时所产生的一种积极的主观情绪体验。自豪作为一种自我意识情绪,具有双维结构,可以分为真实的自豪和自大的自豪。自豪的非言语表达和识别具有跨文化的普遍性。对自豪的测量,目前大多采用自我评定和非言语表达编码两种方式。     

人际情绪调节的认知神经基础

人际情绪调节是社会互动一方有意改变另一方情绪状态的过程,它有利于个体的心理健康和社会关系发展,并且具有不同于自我情绪调节的独特优势。近年已有不少脑成像研究考察了人际情绪调节,在一定程度上揭示了该过程的脑神经基础:人际情绪调节涉及心智化系统(楔前叶、颞顶联合区、内侧前额叶等)、情绪反应系统(杏仁核、脑岛等)和情绪调控系统(外侧前额叶、内侧前额叶、扣带回等),其中心智化系统是不同于自我情绪调节的特异性脑区。未来研究可纳入不同人群作为研究对象,将脑观测技术与脑调控技术相结合,从单脑和双脑两个层面对人际情绪调节的认知神经机制深入探讨,为人际情绪调节在应用领域的实施和推广提供科学依据。     

儿童自我意识情绪的发展

1　引言　　有关情绪的研究仍然是目前研究的主题。Bridges(1932 )曾假设 ,婴儿在出生时就表现出两种相反的情绪 ,消极情绪和积极情绪 (self consciousemotion)。Michael在此基础上强调儿童的认知过程在情绪发展中的重要作用 ,自我意识的产生促进了一类新情绪的产生 ,即自我意识情绪 (self consciousemotions)。自我意识情绪是以个体是否能遵守自己内化的标准为基础的 ,自我意识情绪的发展要求有一定程度的智力发展。一岁不到的儿童感觉到的高兴、悲伤、害怕、愤怒等被心理学家称为初级情绪。大量关于情绪的研究都只涉及到这些初级情绪 ,次…     

道德情绪：道德行为的中介调节

道德情绪是心理学的一个重要研究主题。道德情绪是个体根据一定的道德标准评价自己或他人的行为和思想时所产生的一种情绪体验。它是一种复合情绪, 主要包括厌恶、移情、内疚, 羞耻等。道德情绪影响下人类会产生某些典型行为, 这主要包括道德洁净行为和道德补偿行为。心理学研究道德情绪的实验范式很多, 主要有行为回忆范式、实物或图片刺激范式、情境设置范式等。有关道德情绪的未来研究主要应注重于探讨正性道德情绪在道德发展中的作用, 探讨道德情绪对群体行为的影响, 以及探讨道德情绪在不同文化背景下的价值意义。     

诱发负性情绪时人际情绪调节与个体情绪调节对前瞻记忆的影响

依据在情绪调节过程中大量存在的人际互动现象,首次明确提出人际情绪调节概念,并采用以前瞻记忆成绩为因变量的前后衔接、递进的两阶段实验模式研究其与个体情绪调节对缓解负性情绪影响的差异。结果表明：诱发的负性情绪会干扰双任务前瞻记忆;在高认知负载情境下,人际情绪调节对这种干扰的调节效果显著优于个体情绪调节。这说明从理论上确认人际情绪调节概念具有合理性,从实证上探讨了这种调节方式可能更有效地调节负性情绪对认知资源的占用,从而有助于扩展情绪调节领域的研究视角,并推进对其作用机制的研究     

情绪测量方法的新进展

当代情绪理论认为情绪反应包括生理唤醒、行为反应、面部行为或姿势、以及主观体验等成分。随着时代进步和科技发展,对其的测量也日趋细化,主要包括自我报告法、自主神经系统测量、惊跳反应测量、脑测量及行为测量等方法。大量情绪研究的证据表明,情绪反应的测量多是通过情绪维度（如效价、唤醒度）和基本情绪状态（如,悲伤、恐惧、愤怒）两种方式组织起来的,不同的情绪测量方法对不同的组织方式敏感。未来的情绪测量的标准是多元的,其测量方法的确立是以特定的情绪问题为基础的。     

愤怒和悲伤情绪对助人决策的影响:人际责任归因的作用

基于具体情绪理论——评价倾向框架理论(ATF),采用两项研究考察负性情绪愤怒和悲伤对助人决策的影响,并探究人际责任归因在这一关系中的作用。两项研究均采用自传体情绪记忆任务诱发情绪,研究一中自变量情绪为组间变量,包括愤怒、悲伤和中性三个水平,因变量助人决策操作为为他人花费时间;研究二中自变量1为组间变量情绪,包括愤怒和悲伤,自变量2为组内变量人际责任归因,操作为模糊归因、不可控的情景归因、可控的自我归因三种情境,因变量助人决策操作为为他人花费金钱。结果发现:(1)与愤怒情绪相比,悲伤情绪下个体为他人花费的时间和捐助的金钱更多;(2)在模糊的人际责任归因条件下,悲伤个体会比愤怒个体捐助更多的钱。研究表明:同为负性情绪的愤怒和悲伤在助人决策上的作用不同,悲伤个体比愤怒个体做出更多的助人决策;人际责任性归因会影响附带情绪和助人决策的关系。研究结论有助于理解附带情绪对助人决策的影响,进一步丰富并延伸ATF理论的证据和领域,对发挥情境中人际责任归因在助人决策中的作用具有一定的现实意义。     

群际情绪理论及其研究

群际情绪理论认为, 群际情绪是当个体认同某一社会群体, 群体成为自我的一部分时, 个体对内群体和外群体的情绪体验。群际情绪借用社会认同方法, 采用集体自我的概念作为其理论的源点, 认知评价、情绪、行为倾向是群际理论的三件套; 群际水平的情绪不同于个体水平的情绪; 群际情绪取决于群体认同水平; 群际情绪弥散于整个群体; 群际情绪有助于激发和调节群内、群际态度和行为。新近的研究也为群际理论提供了一定的证据, 群际情绪理论为消解偏见和改善群际关系提供了一个崭新的框架。     

团队情绪研究述评及展望

团队情绪指不同团队成员情感成分的整合状况。通过搜索2000年以来国内外重要学术期刊的相关研究,介绍了团队情绪的组成成分以及团队情绪研究方法,梳理出团队情绪的形成过程,从团队情绪规范、不同情绪状态和特指情绪三方面回顾了团队情绪对团队产出的影响。最后总结了团队情绪的主要研究路径和研究方法,明确指出探索团队情绪这一重要心理变量将会深化团队研究     

Breath Versus Emotions: The Impact of Different Foci of Attention During Mindfulness Meditation on the Experience of Negative and Positive Emotions

Mindfulness meditation yields beneficial effects on the processing of emotions. However, it is still unclear whether the focus of attention during meditation influences these effects. In the present study we aimed at comparing the effects of breathing meditation and emotion-focused meditation on the immediate and delayed processing of negative and positive emotions. The study included 65 adult novice meditators who were exposed to positively and negatively valenced film clips. Participants were randomly assigned to three conditions. While watching the films at t1, they were asked to mindfully focus on their breath (condition 1), on emotions (condition 2), or on nothing in particular (condition 3). Ten minutes later at t2, comparable film clips were shown but all participants watched them without taking up a mindful attitude. Dependent measures were emotional states at t1 and t2. Participants of both meditation conditions particularly showed a more preferable delayed emotional reaction to negative stimuli than participants of the control condition. Breathing meditation and emotion-focused meditation may constitute effective emotion regulation strategies to deal with negatively valenced emotional states.     

Toward a consensual taxonomy of emotions

ABSTRACT

In this article, I chart certain origins of the science of emotion back to the cognitive revolution. I then highlight new developments in the field – the influences of emotion upon cognition, the focus on over 20 emotions, the expanding emphasis on positive emotion, and an abiding interest in the functions emotions serve. I close by arguing for the need for the field to move toward a conceptual taxonomy of emotions, to move beyond decades of terminological debates about what emotions are to a convergent effort to understand what emotions do for people.     

Emotions in Advice Taking: The Roles of Agency and Valence

Recently, advice taking has received attention in decision‐making research, and some studies suggest that emotions may play a role in this process. Yet a clear account of how emotions influence advice taking is lacking. The current research introduces a parsimonious explanation by suggesting that such effects can be predicted on the basis of two emotion dimensions: valence (positivity or negativity) and agency (self‐focused versus other‐focused). In five experiments with different emotion inductions and different measures for advice taking, the effects of positive emotions such as gratitude and pride and of negative emotions such as anger and shame on advice taking were studied. The findings reveal that emotion valence and agency exert an influence on advice taking and that this interaction effect is mediated by the perceived ability of the advisor. Together, these findings provide a unique theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of emotions in advice taking. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

为什么快乐在“上”，悲伤在 “下”? ——语篇阅读中情绪的垂直空间隐喻

以具有一定情境的语篇作为实验材料,采用引导范式和无关任务范式,探讨了“快乐是上,悲伤是下”这一情绪的垂直空间隐喻在语篇阅读中的心理现实性。实验1要求被试阅读情绪语篇后,对呈现在屏幕上方或下方的字母“F”或“J”进行判断。结果发现,被试阅读积极情绪语篇后对呈现在空间位置上方的字母反应更快,阅读消极情绪语篇后对呈现在空间位置下方的字母反应更快,表明语篇阅读中存在情绪的垂直空间隐喻的始源域向目标域映射的心理现实性。实验2要求被试阅读含有空间位移的语篇后对随机呈现在屏幕上方或下方的图片中面孔人物的性别进行判断。结果发现被试阅读含有在空间中向上移动的语篇后对积极情绪图片反应更快,阅读含有在空间中向下移动的语篇后对消极情绪图片的反应更快,说明语篇阅读中存在情绪的垂直空间隐喻的目标域向始源域映射的心理现实性。研究表明：语篇阅读中读者可以产生情绪的垂直空间隐喻,并且空间这一始源域和情绪这一目标域具有双向映射的性质。     

Moral Emotions

Emotions can be the subject of moral judgments; they can also constitute the basis for moral judgments. The apparent circularity which arises if we accept both of these claims is the central topic of this paper: how can emotions be both judge and party in the moral court? The answer I offer regards all emotions as potentially relevant to ethics, rather than singling out a privileged set of moral emotions. It relies on taking a moderate position both on the question of the naturalness of emotions and on that of their objectivity as revealers of value: emotions are neither simply natural nor socially constructed, and they apprehend objective values, but those values are multi‐dimensional and relative to human realities. The “axiological” position I defend jettisons the usual foundations for ethical judgments, and grounds these judgments instead on a rationally informed reflective equilibrium of comprehensive emotional attitudes, tempered with a dose of irony.     

偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响机制

本研究旨在探讨偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响及影响机制。本研究包括两个实验, 在被试进行决策前, 分别采用图片和短片诱发其与当前决策任务无关的偶然情绪, 然后要求被试完成选择任务, 并从决策结果和决策过程两个角度考察偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响及影响机制。结果发现, 当可选项中不存在1个优势选项时, 与正性情绪相比, 个体在负性情绪下会更倾向于延迟选择, 而个体对决策信息的加工深度在偶然情绪对延迟选择的影响中具有中介作用。这可能是因为相比于正性情绪, 个体在负性情绪下会采用更深入的加工策略, 增加了决策难度, 进而提高了个体的延迟选择倾向。     

Methodological Challenges in the Study of Emotions in Politics and How to Deal With Them

This introductory article to the special issue zooms in on the literature on political emotions with a specific focus on methodological questions of “how to study” political emotions. To the extent that methodological matters are addressed in the extant literature, the associated challenges are often portrayed as a clash between social science and natural science disciplines, a clash frequently illustrated by the meeting between political science and neuroscience. Rather than being a clash between academic disciplines, this article argues that many of the methodological challenges facing emotional research have their origin in scholars' diverse views on the relationship between themselves as researchers and political emotions as a research object. In the light of this acknowledgment, the article encircles and discusses the methodological challenges associated with three key conceptual distinctions between: (1) individual and collective emotions, (2) emotions and reason, and between (3) involuntary political emotions and the strategic usage of political emotions. Using the contributions to this special issue as illustrations, the article argues in favor of moving beyond mutually exclusive dichotomies regarding these conceptual distinctions and offers pathways for dealing with current methodological challenges to emotional research. It points to methodological pluralism, transparency, and context‐sensitive research strategies.