伪装情绪的人际影响及其作用机制

伪装情绪是指在情绪交互的过程中, 人们展现实际不存在的积极或消极情绪, 放大亦或是压抑原本的情绪。伪装情绪是一种策略选择的结果, 表现者所展现的情绪在当下可能并未发生, 但却能在某种程度上令人信服。目前关于伪装情绪的研究比较分散, 对于伪装情绪人际影响及其作用机制还存在着一定争议。现有文献多从博弈过程、亲社会行为情境、组织情境和领导效果四个方面对伪装情绪的人际效应进行探讨, 其中相关的机制包括情绪接受者的情感反应及“以己度人”的内心过程。未来的研究可以从情绪接受者、群体伪装、伪装情绪效价、认知神经机制以及文化等方面, 对伪装情绪展开深入系统性的研究。     

中国传统情感心理学中“儒道互补”的情感模式

与西方侧重于情感的生理机制及概念的厘定不同 ,中国传统心理学突出了情感在现实生活中对主体心理的实际功效 ,它通过两种相异的情感类型———儒家重理性认知的道德情感和道家重感性体验的审美情感之间的相补相成 ,即一种儒道互补的情感模式 ,使主体既可获得合乎规范的社会情感 ,又可享受精神自由的个体情趣 ,进而使情感对主体心理生活的调适功能得到最大限度的发挥     

情绪领导力：概念、测量、发展与模型建构

情绪领导力是指领导者基于自身情绪能力, 通过情绪传染和策略运用来有效管理组织成员的正性和负性情绪, 充分发挥不同情绪的有利效价, 营造应景的组织情绪氛围, 带领组织成员为实现组织共同目标而奋斗。目前, 情绪领导力的测量主要是借用情绪智力量表, 缺乏标准化工具。情绪领导力的研究发展经历3个阶段：以领导情绪能力为中心、以领导情绪传染为中心和以情绪领导力为中心。基于各阶段研究梳理, 建构整合模型：遗传基因、人格和情绪特质对情绪领导力起预测作用, 大脑活动(右侧额叶)与情绪领导力互为因果关系。情绪领导力通过直接和间接两条路径对个体和组织层面的领导效能产生显著影响。未来研究应加强对概念、测量、调节机制、生物基础、组织层面议题和跨文化对比等方面进行探讨。     

情绪复杂性对精神症状的影响途径及干预技术

情绪复杂性指的是个体情绪体验的多样性和分化度。情绪复杂性影响了精神症状的形成, 它不仅通过改变情绪调节策略的频率和程度来影响精神症状, 而且会影响情绪调节策略和精神症状之间的关系。基于情绪复杂性的干预增加了暴露治疗的疗效。正念能提升情绪复杂性, 但两者的作用机制可能有所差别。情绪复杂性的多角度测量、作用条件及脑机制应成为今后在临床领域的研究方向。     

狭义情绪的神经—心理机制

在新近人们对情绪神经机制的探索中,很多研究成果都在表明,在通常概念下的人的情绪感受中,不仅有那种含有喜厌态度的更严格意义上的情绪成分,还有直接来自各种内外感官上的认知性感知觉成分。本文的目的是运用新近的情绪心理学研究成果,仅以情绪内在体验中的含有喜厌态度的心理成分作为情绪的心理实体,对其的神经—心理机制进行一些尝试性的解释,以期使通常概念情绪感受中的情绪成分和感觉成分更具可辨性。     

Callous-unemotional traits and empathy deficits: Mediating effects of affective perspective-taking and facial emotion recognition

Although empathy deficits are thought to be associated with callous-unemotional (CU) traits, findings remain equivocal and little is known about what specific abilities may underlie these purported deficits. Affective perspective-taking (APT) and facial emotion recognition may be implicated, given their independent associations with both empathy and CU traits. The current study examined how CU traits relate to cognitive and affective empathy and whether APT and facial emotion recognition mediate these relations. Participants were 103 adolescents (70 males) aged 16–18 attending a residential programme. CU traits were negatively associated with cognitive and affective empathy to a similar degree. The association between CU traits and affective empathy was partially mediated by APT. Results suggest that assessing mechanisms that may underlie empathic deficits, such as perspective-taking, may be important for youth with CU traits and may inform targets of intervention.     

情绪冲突：一个新的研究主题

情绪冲突是心理学中一个新的研究主题,相关研究主要源自认知冲突的研究。本文分三部分对情绪冲突进行了介绍,包括：（1）情绪冲突的溯源,概括介绍了认知冲突领域的研究情况;（2）与情绪冲突有关的行为研究,包括采用情绪Stroop范式、词－面孔Stroop范式、情绪启动范式和情绪Flanker范式等进行的研究;（3）情绪冲突的脑成像研究,主要包括情绪冲突的检测和解决的脑机制。未来的研究,需要广泛借鉴认知冲突的研究范式,对情绪冲突发生的条件、影响因素、动态变化及相应的神经机制进行深入研究,并结合对情绪障碍（如抑郁症和焦虑症）患者的考察,将基础研究转化为实际应用     

高低幸福感人群的负情绪特点：生理和表情的依据

为了检测高、低幸福感人群的负情绪反应诸多特点, 研究在实验室诱发厌恶情绪, 以比较高、低幸福组在情绪主观报告、生理、表情、恢复力及调节策略等方面的差异。组间比较结果显示：(1)负情绪情境下, 低幸福组生理唤醒(HR和GSR)较强, 有较多表情抑制; 高幸福组有更多表情行为, 恢复较快; (2)高幸福组有较强的认知再评习惯。研究提示, 逆境中, 高幸福感人群将有较强的情绪表达与恢复力, 低幸福感人群则保留较强的情绪生理动力。     

情绪、情绪调节策略与情绪材料记忆的关系

研究采用实验法,以288名中小学生为被试,考察了不同情绪状态、不同情绪调节策略与不同类型情绪材料记忆的关系。结果表明:(1)快乐情绪的再认反应时短于悲伤情绪,快乐情绪的再认正确率高于悲伤情绪。(2)表达抑制策略下,词汇与图片的再认反应时无显著差异;认知重评策略下,词汇的再认反应时短于图片;对词汇和图片的再认反应时,认知重评组短于表达抑制组;认知重评组的再认正确率高于表达抑制组。(3)快乐材料再认反应时短于悲伤材料;快乐情绪下快乐材料的再认正确率高于悲伤材料,悲伤情绪下悲伤材料的再认正确率高于快乐材料。     

Cognitive fusion and emotion differentiation: does getting entangled with our thoughts dysregulate the generation,experience and regulation of emotion?

We tested whether cognitive fusion impairs emotion differentiation and thereby mediates relations between cognitive fusion and depression and panic symptoms among 55 adults (M_age?=?26.8 (3.9), 50.9% women). Using visual stimuli, we elicited multiple emotion states and measured (a) emotional intensity – the subjective emotion intensity of elicited emotions (i.e. Specific Emotion Intensity – SEI), as well as (b) emotional differentiation – the degree of co-activation of multiple negative emotions when a specific emotion was elicited (i.e. Multiple Emotion Co-Activation – MECA). First, as hypothesised, we found that cognitive fusion predicted lower levels of emotion differentiation (MECA). In contrast, as hypothesised, these effects were significantly greater than the (null) effects of cognitive fusion on emotion intensity (SEI). Second, as predicted, MECA, but not SEI, predicted depression and panic symptoms. Finally, we found that MECA mediated the effects of cognitive fusion on depression and panic symptoms. The present findings contribute novel, preliminary empirical insight into associations between cognitive fusion, impaired emotion differentiation and mental ill-health.     

Test–retest reliability and task order effects of emotional cognitive tests in healthy subjects

Little is known of the retest reliability of emotional cognitive tasks or the impact of using different tasks employing similar emotional stimuli within a battery. We investigated this in healthy subjects. We found improved overall performance in an emotional attentional blink task (EABT) with repeat testing at one hour and one week compared to baseline, but the impact of an emotional stimulus on performance was unchanged. Similarly, performance on a facial expression recognition task (FERT) was better one week after a baseline test, though the relative effect of specific emotions was unaltered. There was no effect of repeat testing on an emotional word categorising, recall and recognition task. We found no difference in performance in the FERT and EABT irrespective of task order. We concluded that it is possible to use emotional cognitive tasks in longitudinal studies and combine tasks using emotional facial stimuli in a single battery.