趋避倾向对面孔情绪集群编码的影响及其干预*

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240501

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 将“趋近-回避”任务与面孔情绪平均辨别任务结合,通过两个实验考察趋避倾向对面孔情绪集群编码的影响及其干预。实验1以逼近和远离两种方式呈现情绪面孔以诱发趋避倾向,从而检验其对面孔情绪集群编码的影响。实验2则在实验1任务前安排句子整理任务以启动内隐认知重评,进而检验认知重评策略能否干预趋避倾向对面孔情绪集群编码的影响。研究结果发现：(1)个体对负性面孔的回避倾向相较趋近倾向能够显著影响面孔情绪集群编码的精度,从而出现“趋利避害相容效应”中的“避害相容效应”;(2)运用内隐认知重评可以减少回避倾向对于面孔情绪集群编码的影响,从而消除此“避害相容效应”。以上发现有力地支持了动机定向理论。

关键词: 集群编码, 群体面孔情绪, 趋避倾向, 情绪调节

Abstract: Previous studies have investigated the approach-avoidance response to emotional faces and the processing characteristics of facial emotional ensemble coding as separate entities. However, there is a lack of research that has integrated these two aspects to explore the potential influence of approach-avoidance tendencies, induced by the same set of emotional facial expressions on facial expression ensemble encoding. To address this research gap, we conducted two logically progressive experiments by combining the classic approach-avoidance task with the emotional facial expression ensemble task. The goal was to investigate the potential impact of emotional approach-avoidance tendencies on the ensemble coding of facial emotions. Furthermore, we aimed to explore whether the motivational dimensions of emotional stimuli modulate the ensemble coding of facial emotions from the perspective of motivational orientation theory.
The experiment was programmed using Presentation software (Neurobehavioral Systems Inc.) and presented on a 21-inch Dell monitor. Experiment 1 employed a 2 (emotional valence: positive vs negative) × 2 (motivational orientation: approach vs. avoidance) within-subjects design. The dependent variable was the mean error value of face emotion ensemble coding ($\mathrm{ME}=\frac{\sum \text { |test-mean }}{n}$). The positive or negative faces were presented in two ways: approaching and withdrawing. Participants were instructed to perceive the mean emotion of the group faces. They were then asked to use the mouse wheel to adjust the emotion of the test face to match the mean emotion of the group faces. Experiment 2 was simplified based on the results of Experiment 1. The positive faces from the ensemble coding task in Experiment 1 were discarded. A 2 (group: experimental group vs. control group) × 2 (motivational orientation: approach vs. avoidance) two-factor mixed design was used in Experiment 2. This experiment consisted of four phases: an emotional state pre-test, a sentence arrangement task, an emotional state post-test, and a group face ensemble coding task. The “experimental group-control group” design was adopted, and different sentence arrangement tasks were set up before the face emotion ensemble coding task. This was done to test whether implicit emotion regulation strategies could reduce the influence of negative avoidance tendencies on face emotion ensemble coding.
The results of Experiment 1 revealed a significant interaction between emotional valence and motivational orientation in the face emotional ensemble coding task (p < .05). Further analysis showed that the error in coding negative faces in the approach condition was significantly higher than in the avoidance condition. Additionally, the average error in ensemble coding for negative faces in the avoidance condition was significantly lower than for positive faces. In Experiment 2, the results showed a significant interaction between group and motivational orientation (p < .01). The simple effect analysis indicated that there was no significant difference in the mean error between the approach and avoidance conditions in the experimental group. However, in the control group, the mean error in the approach condition was significantly higher than in the avoidance condition, which was consistent with the findings in Experiment 1. Moreover, the mean error in approach conditions in the control group was significantly higher than that in the experimental group.
In conclusion, this study provides evidence that emotional avoidance tendency has an impact on face emotion ensemble coding, while a cognitive reappraisal strategy can eliminate this effect. It supports the motivational orientation theory and challenges the event coding theory. Furthermore, it highlights the significant influence of the motivational dimension of emotional stimuli on emotion perception. The key conclusions are as follows: (1) Negative avoidance tendencies can affect the ensemble coding of emotional faces and induce perceptual biases. (2) Implicit cognitive reappraisal can reduce negative avoidance tendency and regulate its influence on the ensemble coding of emotional faces.

Key words: ensemble coding, emotion in facial crowd, the approach-avoidance tendency, emotion regulation

赖婷婷, 祝吴静, 林增臻, 王小琴, 贾磊. 趋避倾向对面孔情绪集群编码的影响及其干预^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(5): 1026-1035.

Lai Tingting, Zhu Wujing, Lin Zengzhen, Wang Xiaoqin, Jia Lei. The Impact and Intervention of the Approach-Avoidance Tendencies on the Ensemble Coding of Emotional Facial Expressions in a Crowd[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(5): 1026-1035.

参考文献

[1] 白露, 马慧, 黄宇霞, 罗跃嘉. (2005). 中国情绪图片系统的编制——在46名中国大学生中的试用. 中国心理卫生杂志, 19(11), 719-722.
[2] 袁加锦, 张祎程, 陈圣栋, 罗利, 茹怡珊. (2021). 中国情绪调节词语库的初步编制与试用. 心理学报, 53(5), 445-455.
[3] 张卫东, 刁静, Schick, C. J. (2004). 正、负性情绪的跨文化心理测量: PANAS维度结构检验. 心理科学, 27(1), 77-79.
[4] Bai Y., Leib A. Y., Puri A. M., Whitney D., & Peng K. P. (2015). Gender differences in crowd perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1300.
[5] Balcetis, E. (2016). Approach and avoidance as organizing structures for motivated distance perception. Emotion Review, 8(2), 115-128.
[6] Dodgson, D. B., & Raymond, J. E. (2020). Value associations bias ensemble perception. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 82(1), 109-117.
[7] Elias E., Dyer M., & Sweeny T. D. (2016). Ensemble perception of dynamic emotional groups. Psychological Science, 28(2), 193-203.
[8] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[9] Fini C., Fischer M., Bardi L., Brass M., & Moors A. (2020). Support from a TMS/MEP study for a direct link between positive/negative stimuli and approach/avoidance tendencies. Neuropsychologia, 143, Article 107496.
[10] Givon E., Berkovich R., Oz-Cohen E., Rubinstein K., Singer-Landau E., Udelsman-Danieli G., & Meiran N. (2023). Are women truly “more emotional” than men? sex differences in an indirect model-based measure of emotional feelings. Current Psychology, 42(36), 32469-32482.
[11] Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2009). Seeing the mean: Ensemble coding for sets of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 718-734.
[12] Im H. Y., Albohn D. N., Steiner T. G., Cushing C. A., Adams R. B. Jr., & Kveraga K. (2017). Differential hemispheric and visual stream contributions to ensemble coding of crowd emotion. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11), 828-842.
[13] Jia L., Cheng M. R., Lu J. H., Wu Y. P., & Wang J. (2023). Context consistency improves ensemble perception of facial expressions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 30(1), 280-290.
[14] Kozlik J., Neumann R., & Lozo L. (2015). Contrasting motivational orientation and evaluative coding accounts: On the need to differentiate the effectors of approach/avoidance responses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 563.
[15] Lakens, D., & Caldwell, A. R. (2021). Simulation-Based power analysis for factorial analysis of variance designs. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), Article 2515245920951503.
[16] Lang P. J., Bradley M. M., & Cuthbert B. N. (2001). International Affective Picture System (IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings.University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.
[17] Munneke J., Duymaz İ., & Corbett J. E. (2022). Value-driven effects on perceptual averaging. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 84(3), 781-794.
[18] Neumann, R., & Schneider, L. J. (2024). What is in a smile: The role of evaluation goal and response labels in facial muscle responses to prejudiced groups. Psychophysiology, 61(3), Article e14518.
[19] Robertd T., Cant J. S., & Nestor A. (2019). Elucidating the neural representation and the processing dynamics of face ensembles. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(39), 7737-7747.
[20] Roskes M., Elliot A. J., Nijstad B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Avoidance motivation and conservation of energy. Emotion Review, 5(3), 264-268.
[21] Scherer, K. R., & Moors, A. (2019). The emotion process: Event appraisal and component differentiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 719-745.
[22] Shahane A. D., Lopez R. B., & Denny B. T. (2019). Implicit reappraisal as an emotional buffer: Reappraisal-related neural activity moderates the relationship between inattention and perceived stress during exposure to negative stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 19(2), 355-365.
[23] Stevens, J. S., & Hamann, S. (2012). Sex differences in brain activation to emotional stimuli: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1578-1593.
[24] Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220-247.
[25] Tottenham N., Tanaka J. W., Leon A. C., McCarry T., Nurse M., Hare T. A., & Nelson C. (2009). The NimStim set of facial expressions: Judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), 242-249.
[26] van Peer J. M., Rotteveel M., Spinhoven P., Tollenaar M. S., & Roelofs K. (2010). Affect-congruent approach and withdrawal movements of happy and angry faces facilitate affective categorisation. Cognition and Emotion, 24(5), 863-875.
[27] Wang H. Y., Xu G. Q., Ni M. F., Zhang C. H., Sun X. P., Chang Y., & Zhang B. W. (2017). Neural mechanisms of implicit cognitive reappraisal: Preceding descriptions alter emotional response to unpleasant images. Neuroscience, 347, 65-75.
[28] 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), 1063-1070.
[29] Whitney, D., & Yamanashi Leib, A. (2018). Ensemble perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 105-129.
[30] Wolz I., Nannt J., & Svaldi J. (2020). Laboratory-based interventions targeting food craving: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity Reviews, 21(5), e12996.
[31] Wong S. F., Krause S., Marishel D., & Grisham J. R. (2021). Reappraisal of disgust: Self-report and behavioural assessment of individuals with moderate to high contamination fears. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 78, 102346.
[32] Yiend, J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of emotional information. Cognition and Emotion, 24(1), 3-47.

趋避倾向对面孔情绪集群编码的影响及其干预^*

The Impact and Intervention of the Approach-Avoidance Tendencies on the Ensemble Coding of Emotional Facial Expressions in a Crowd

PDF

评审附件

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	莫李澄, 李思瑾, 张丹丹. 社会疼痛情绪调节的神经机制^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(3): 530-537.
[2]	李小保, 吕厚超. 平衡时间洞察力与心理健康的关系:情绪调节策略的中介作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(3): 562-569.
[3]	邹艳春, 陈启瑶, 彭坚, 曾晓晴. 问题导向领导人际情绪管理的收益与代价:基于员工与领导的差异化视角^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(3): 630-638.
[4]	邢晓沛, 赵新宇, 胡夏. 学前儿童执行功能与情绪调节的双向关系：基于交叉滞后与随机截距交叉滞后的分析^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(1): 80-88.
[5]	姚雨佳, 徐舵, 桑标. 情绪调节策略使用习惯和选择偏好的分离效应：特质焦虑的调节作用 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1106-1113.
[6]	倪旭东, 杨露琳, 朱星魁. 职业呼唤对工作绩效的影响：情绪调节和职业弹性的多重中介作用^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 937-943.
[7]	郝爽叶倩君何蔚祺. 群体面孔情绪的整体编码及其影响因素[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(1): 50-56.
[8]	张少华桑标潘婷婷刘影. 不同抑郁症状青少年调节不同强度情绪时策略选择的差异[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(3): 574-583.
[9]	郑琰陈伟王洪叶. 内隐重评对情绪调节影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(2): 268-276.
[10]	张晶陈鑫鑫冯彩霞刘攀. 自动情绪调节目标对选择性注意的影响：来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(2): 287-294.
[11]	王海霞雷怡郑文瑜李红王超. rtfMRI-NF技术在抑郁症干预中的应用[J]. 心理科学, 2022, 45(2): 498-505.
[12]	张少华桑标江凯潘婷婷刘影. 社交焦虑大学生情绪调节灵活性：情绪内容对策略选择和使用的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(3): 633-641.
[13]	任志洪谭梦鸰赵春晓江光荣. 辩证行为疗法：理论背景、治疗效果及作用机制[J]. 心理科学, 2021, 44(2): 481-488.
[14]	张少华桑标刘影潘婷婷. 不同抑郁症状青少年日常情绪调节策略使用的差异[J]. , 2020, 43(6): 1296-1303.
[15]	何振宏张丹丹. 抑郁个体对社会反馈的加工：研究现状及存在问题[J]. 心理科学, 2018, 41(1): 231-237.