情绪对联合行动中共同表征能力的影响机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00269

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用联合Simon任务通过3个实验探究不同情绪维度对联合任务中共同表征能力的影响机制。实验1a、1b分别考察在高、低唤醒度条件下不同效价对个体共同表征能力的影响; 实验2在此基础上进一步探索动机维度在其中的作用。结果发现：无论效价高低, 高唤醒度都是提高个体共同表征能力的关键因素, 且动机强度在其中起一定调节作用; 而在低唤醒度条件下, 高效价会起一定补偿作用。上述结果很好地支持了参照编码假说, 也澄清了情绪不同维度对联合动作表征的影响机制。

关键词: 情绪效价, 唤醒度, 动机, 联合Simon效应, 参照编码假说

Abstract:

Joint action is a common phenomenon that involves two or more people cooperating together to achieve a common goal in our daily life. The action representation of co-actors play an important role in joint actions. Self-other integration, as a type of cognitive process, is the foundation of the joint action. Moreover, emotion can influence not only cognitive processes but also social interactions (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Therefore, it is worthy to investigate whether different types of emotion play an important role in joint action.
Three experiments were conducted in the present study to explore the influences of different dimensional of emotions on joint actions. A total of 48 participants were recruited in Experiment 1a to investigate the change of co-representation ability in joint action under conditions of high level of arousal with high/low level of valence. Joint Simon task was used to measure the ability of co-representation, and PANAS and Affect Grid were used to measure the level of emotional valence and arousal. In Experiment 1b, 48 participants were recruited to further explore the effect of low arousal with different valences on joint actions. In Experiment 2, another 48 participants were recruited to explore the effect of the dimension of motivation on joint actions under the condition of high arousal and high valence.
The results of Experiment 1a showed that high arousal improved Joint Simon effect (JSE) significantly regardless of the valence, which indicated that high arousal played an important role in joint actions. Experiment 1b revealed that high valence played a compensating role under the condition of low arousal. The results of combined analyses of experiment 1a and 1b showed that high arousal could be a key factor in enhancing the ability of co-representation. Experiment 2 found that, only under the condition of low motivation, high arousal with high valence could significantly improve JSE.
In conclusion, these results indicate that (1) high level of emotional arousal is the key factor in improving the ability of co-representation in joint actions regardless of the level of emotional valence; (2) high level of emotional valence played an compensating role under the condition of low level of arousal to maintain the level of co-representation; (3) the high arousal is not the determined factor in the enhancement of the co-representation and moderated by motivation intensity as well; and (4) When completing joint action, emotions adjusts the referential coding of co-actor through regulating range of attention so that influences the ability of co-representation, which further confirming the referential coding account.

Key words: emotional valence, emotional arousal, motivation, joint Simon effect, referential coding account

中图分类号:

B842

宋晓蕾, 贾筱倩, 赵媛, 郭晶晶. (2020). 情绪对联合行动中共同表征能力的影响机制. 心理学报, 52(3), 269-282.

SONG Xiaolei, JIA Xiaoqian, ZHAO Yuan, GUO Jingjing. (2020). The underlying mechanism of emotions on co-representation in joint actions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3), 269-282.

图/表 12

参考文献 46

[1]	Baron R. A . (1987). Effects of negative ions on interpersonal attraction: Evidence for intensification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 547-553.
[2]	Bedwell W. L., Pavlas D., Heyne K., Lazzara E. H., & Salas E . (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729-760.
[3]	Clore G. L., & Huntsinger J. R . (2009). How the object of affect guides its impact. Emotion Review, 1(1), 39-54.
[4]	Colzato L. S., de Bruijn E. R. A., & Hommel B . (2012). Up to “me” or up to “us”? The impact of self-construal priming on cognitive self-other integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 341.
[5]	Colzato L. S., Zech H., Hommel B., Verdonschot R., van den Wildenberg W. P. M., & Hsieh S . (2012). Loving-kindness brings loving-kindness: The impact of Buddhism on cognitive self-other integration. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(4), 541-545.
[6]	Corson Y., & Verrier N . (2007). Emotions and false memories: valence or arousal? Psychological Science, 18(3), 208-211.
[7]	Cunningham M. R . (1988). What do you do when you’re happy or blue? Mood, expectancies, and behavioral interest. Motivation and Emotion, 12(4), 309-331.
[8]	Desimone, R., Duncan J . (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222.
[9]	Dolk T., Hommel B., Colzato L. S., Schütz-Bosbach S., Prinz W., & Liepelt R . (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2(84), 84.
[10]	Dolk T., Hommel B., Colzato L. S., Schütz-Bosbach S., Prinz W., & Liepelt R . (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(974), 1-10.
[11]	Dolk T., Hommel B., Prinz W., & Liepelt R . (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248-1260.
[12]	Dunn J. R., & Schweitzer M. E . (2005). Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 736-748.
[13]	Forgas J. P . (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 565-577.
[14]	Fredrickson B. L . (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
[15]	Fredrickson B. L . (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91(4), 330-335.
[16]	Fredrickson B. L., & Branigan C . (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313-332.
[17]	Gable P. A., & Harmon-Jones E . (2010). The motivational dimensional model of affect: Implications for breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation. Cognition and Emotion, 24(2), 322-337.
[18]	Gilet A.-L., Jallais C . (2011). Valence, arousal, and word associations. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 740-746.
[19]	Heyes C . (2014). Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 131-143.
[20]	Hommel B . (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189-202.
[21]	Huang L., Yang T. Z., Ji Z. M . (2003). Applicability of the positive and negative affect scale in Chinese. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 17(1), 54-56.
	[ 黄丽, 杨廷忠, 季忠民 . (2003). 正性负性情绪量表的中国人群适用性研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 17(1), 54-56.]
[22]	Jefferies L. N., Smilek D., Eich E., & Enns J. T . (2008). Emotional valence and arousal interact in attentional control. Psychological Science, 19(3), 290-295.
[23]	Kandel E. R., Schwartz J. H., & Jessell T. M . (2000). Principles of neural science (4^th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[24]	Kanske P., & Kotz S. A . (2010). Modulation of early conflict processing: N200 responses to emotional words in a flanker task. Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3661-3664.
[25]	Kuhbandner C., & Zehetleitner M . (2011). Dissociable effects of valence and arousal in adaptive executive control. PLoS One, 6(12), e29287.
[26]	Kuhbandner C., Pekrun R., & Maier M. A . (2010). The role of positive and negative affect in the “mirroring” of other persons’ actions. Cognition and Emotion, 24(7), 1182-1190.
[27]	Larson M. J., Gray A. C., Clayson P. E., Jones R., & Kirwan B. C . (2013). What are the influences of orthogonally-manipulated valence and arousal on performance monitoring processes? The effects of affective state. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87(3), 327-339.
[28]	Lazar J. N., & Pearlman-Avnion S . (2014). Effect of affect induction method on emotional valence and arousal. Psychology, 5(7), 595-601.
[29]	Liepelt R., Klempova B., Dolk T., Colzato L. S., Ragert P., Nitsche M. A., & Hommel B . (2016). The medial frontal cortex mediates self-other discrimination in the joint Simon task: A tDCS study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 30(3), 87-101.
[30]	Lyubomirsky S., King L., & Diener E . (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855.
[31]	Ma Q. G., & Shang Q . (2013). Modulation of emotion on Simon effect: An experimental study. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 19(2), 119-125.
	[ 马庆国, 尚倩 . (2013). 情绪对西蒙效应的调节作用. 应用心理学, 19(2), 119-125.]
[32]	Ma Y. G., Li S. X . (2014). The effect of high: Approach- motivated positive affect on attentional flexibility. Psychological Exploration, 34(6), 517-522.
	[ 马元广, 李寿欣 . (2014). 高趋近动机积极情绪对注意灵活性的影响. 心理学探新, 34(6), 517-522.]
[33]	Memelink J., & Hommel B . (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control . Psychological Research, 77(3), 249-259.
[34]	Porcu E., Bolling L., Lappe M., & Liepelt R . (2016). Pointing out mechanisms underlying joint action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(4), 972-977.
[35]	Rowe G., Hirsh J. B., & Anderson A. K . (2007). Positive affect increases the breadth of attentional selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(1), 383-388.
[36]	Russell J. A., Weiss A., & Mendelsohn G. A . (1989). The affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 493-502.
[37]	Schmitz T. W., de Rosa E., & Anderson A. K . (2009). Opposing influences of affective state valence on visual cortical encoding. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(22), 7199-7207.
[38]	Sebanz N., Bekkering H., & Knoblich G . (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76.
[39]	Sebanz N., Knoblich G., & Prinz W . (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11-B21.
[40]	van Steenbergen H., Band G. P. H., Hommel B., Rombouts S. A. R. B., & Nieuwenhuis S . (2014). Hedonic hotspots regulate cingulate-driven adaptation to cognitive demands. Cerebral Cortex, 25(7), 1746-1756.
[41]	Vesper C., Abramova E., Bütepage J., Ciardo F., Crossey B., Effenberg A., … Wahn B . (2016). Joint action: Mental representations, shared information and general mechanisms for coordinating with others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2039.
[42]	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.
[43]	Waugh C. E., & Fredrickson B. L . (2006). Nice to know you: Positive emotions, self-other overlap, and complex understanding in the formation of a new relationship. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(2), 93-106.
[44]	Xu S., Song X. L . (2016). Joint Simon effect: Current research, influencing factors and theories. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(3), 367-378.
	[ 徐胜, 宋晓蕾 . (2016). 联合Simon效应:现状、影响因素与理论解释. 心理科学进展, 24(3), 367-378.]
[45]	Yamaguchi M., Wall H. J., & Hommel B . (2016). Sharing tasks or sharing actions? Evidence from the joint Simon task. Psychological Research, 82(2), 385-394.
[46]	Zhang G. N., & Zhou R. L . (2013). The effect of low versus high motivational intensity affect on attentional scope. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 11(1), 30-36.
	[ 张光楠, 周仁来 . (2013). 情绪对注意范围的影响:动机程度的调节作用. 心理与行为研究, 11(1), 30-36.]

情绪分组	积极量表	消极量表
实验1a
高唤醒高效价	32.71 ± 6.03	18.75 ± 5.85
高唤醒低效价	30.96 ± 4.31	17.92 ± 5.68
实验1b
低唤醒高效价	29.33 ± 5.78	16.83 ± 4.93
低唤醒低效价	29.25 ± 7.15	17.17 ± 5.63
实验2
高唤醒高效价高动机	31.88 ± 3.22	18.38 ± 3.13
高唤醒高效价低动机	30.83 ± 4.12	18.71 ± 3.06

情绪分组	积极量表	消极量表
实验1a
高唤醒高效价	32.71 ± 6.03	18.75 ± 5.85
高唤醒低效价	30.96 ± 4.31	17.92 ± 5.68
实验1b
低唤醒高效价	29.33 ± 5.78	16.83 ± 4.93
低唤醒低效价	29.25 ± 7.15	17.17 ± 5.63
实验2
高唤醒高效价高动机	31.88 ± 3.22	18.38 ± 3.13
高唤醒高效价低动机	30.83 ± 4.12	18.71 ± 3.06

情绪分组	基线(1)	评分2	评分3
实验1a
高唤醒高效价	6.17 ± 1.83	7.33 ± 0.87	6.92 ± 1.28
高唤醒低效价	5.67 ± 1.99	7.46 ± 1.14	6.29 ± 1.27
高唤醒高效价	6.88 ± 1.08	7.67 ± 0.87	7.88 ± 0.99
高唤醒低效价	6.71 ± 1.46	2.44 ± 0.83	3.79 ± 1.59
实验1b
低唤醒高效价	5.29 ± 1.97	4.33 ± 1.63	5.92 ± 2.08
低唤醒低效价	5.71 ± 1.76	4.08 ± 0.78	5.13 ± 1.58
低唤醒高效价	6.62 ± 1.25	7.29 ± 1.04	7.17 ± 1.09
低唤醒低效价	6.92 ± 1.06	2.46 ± 0.72	4.71 ± 1.81

情绪分组	基线(1)	评分2	评分3
实验1a
高唤醒高效价	6.17 ± 1.83	7.33 ± 0.87	6.92 ± 1.28
高唤醒低效价	5.67 ± 1.99	7.46 ± 1.14	6.29 ± 1.27
高唤醒高效价	6.88 ± 1.08	7.67 ± 0.87	7.88 ± 0.99
高唤醒低效价	6.71 ± 1.46	2.44 ± 0.83	3.79 ± 1.59
实验1b
低唤醒高效价	5.29 ± 1.97	4.33 ± 1.63	5.92 ± 2.08
低唤醒低效价	5.71 ± 1.76	4.08 ± 0.78	5.13 ± 1.58
低唤醒高效价	6.62 ± 1.25	7.29 ± 1.04	7.17 ± 1.09
低唤醒低效价	6.92 ± 1.06	2.46 ± 0.72	4.71 ± 1.81

情绪分组	任务阶段	一致性	反应时(ms)	正确率(%)
高唤醒高效价组	情绪诱发前	一致	353 ± 34	98.08 ± 2.1
		不一致	364 ± 32	98.17 ± 2.4
		JSE	11^***	-0.09
	情绪诱发后	一致	330 ± 36	98.21 ± 1.4
		不一致	348 ± 36	98.29 ± 2.1
		JSE	18^***	-0.08
高唤醒低效价组	情绪诱发前	一致	356 ± 29	98.71 ± 1.9
		不一致	369 ± 32	97.62 ± 2.4
		JSE	12^***	1.09
	情绪诱发后	一致	343 ± 40	97.25 ± 2.4
		不一致	363 ± 50	97.04 ± 2.7
		JSE	20^***	0.21