Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Stereotyping
- All Subjects: Feelings
- Creators: Shiota, Michelle N.
- Creators: Fisher, Bobbi Paige
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
Description
ABSTRACT
What does it mean to feel an emotion? The nature of emotional
experience has often been described in terms overall conscious experience, termed affect. However, even within affective research there are multiple contradicting theories about the nature and structure of affect. I propose that these contradictions are due to methodological issues in the empirical research examining these underlying dimensions. Furthermore, I propose that subjective emotional experience should be examined separately from overall affect. The current study attempts to address past methodological issues by focusing solely on emotional experiences, developing a comprehensive list of emotion items, and including a broad range of emotional experiences. In Study 1, participants were asked to recall an emotional experience and then report their experience of 76 different emotions during that experience. A factor analysis of the emotion ratings revealed a 5-factor categorical structure with categories of Joy, Anger, Sadness, Fear, and Shame/Jealousy. In Study 2, the 76 emotion words from Study 1 were compared in a semantic space derived from a large collection of text samples in an attempt to compare to the results of Study 1. A semantic space derived from a broad range of texts would reflect relationships of emotional concepts. Study 2 revealed a 1-factor structure, drastically different from the structure in Study 1. The implications from Study 2, however, are limited because of the limited range of literature that was used to create the semantic space in which the words were compared. Overall, the results from these studies suggest that subjective emotional experience should be treated as categorical.
What does it mean to feel an emotion? The nature of emotional
experience has often been described in terms overall conscious experience, termed affect. However, even within affective research there are multiple contradicting theories about the nature and structure of affect. I propose that these contradictions are due to methodological issues in the empirical research examining these underlying dimensions. Furthermore, I propose that subjective emotional experience should be examined separately from overall affect. The current study attempts to address past methodological issues by focusing solely on emotional experiences, developing a comprehensive list of emotion items, and including a broad range of emotional experiences. In Study 1, participants were asked to recall an emotional experience and then report their experience of 76 different emotions during that experience. A factor analysis of the emotion ratings revealed a 5-factor categorical structure with categories of Joy, Anger, Sadness, Fear, and Shame/Jealousy. In Study 2, the 76 emotion words from Study 1 were compared in a semantic space derived from a large collection of text samples in an attempt to compare to the results of Study 1. A semantic space derived from a broad range of texts would reflect relationships of emotional concepts. Study 2 revealed a 1-factor structure, drastically different from the structure in Study 1. The implications from Study 2, however, are limited because of the limited range of literature that was used to create the semantic space in which the words were compared. Overall, the results from these studies suggest that subjective emotional experience should be treated as categorical.
ContributorsOsborne, Elizabeth (Author) / Shiota, Michelle N. (Thesis advisor) / Glenberg, Arthur (Committee member) / Neuberg, Steven (Committee member) / Becker, David V. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
An emerging body of literature suggests that humans likely have multiple threat avoidance systems that enable us to detect and avoid threats in our environment, such as disease threats and physical safety threats. These systems are presumed to be domain-specific, each handling one class of potential threats, and previous research generally supports this assumption. Previous research has not, however, directly tested the domain-specificity of disease avoidance and self-protection by showing that activating one threat management system does not lead to responses consistent only with a different threat management system. Here, the domain- specificity of the disease avoidance and self-protection systems is directly tested using the lexical decision task, a measure of stereotype accessibility, and the implicit association test. Results, although inconclusive, more strongly support a series of domain-specific threat management systems than a single, domain- general system
ContributorsAnderson, Uriah Steven (Author) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Thesis advisor) / Shiota, Michelle N. (Committee member) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Becker, David V (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
The current study looked at weight stereotype presence and whether certain types of medical professionals held this bias over others. This study also investigated if there was a relation between medical professionals' self-esteem and the presence of the weight stereotype. By having a sample consisting of registered nurses, physician assistants, and medical doctors data was then collected within each group to analyze for any significant differences between the three levels of medical professionals. Eleven participants were guided through participation in the Harvard Implicit Association Test, specifically testing for weight stereotype presence, followed by responses to 50 true/false statements on the Sorensen Self-Esteem Test to measure the self-esteem of each participant. The participants within this study were 11 medical professionals, between the ages of 25 and 59, with 6 women and 5 men. The resulting sample consisted of 6 registered nurses, 3 physician assistants, and 2 medical doctors all currently practicing medicine in the state of Arizona, with the exception of 1 participant who is practicing in Colorado. This study was conducted through Qualtrics, an online database through Arizona State University. Upon completion of the study, 3 different tests were run using the data collected. The first was a between-subjects effect test to determine if there was a difference in stereotype presence among the three levels of medical professionals. The second test was a correlation between stereotype presence and the self-esteem each medical professional displayed. The third was a between-subjects effect test looking at self-esteem differences among the three levels of medical professionals. None of the tests yielded significant results, suggesting that there is no difference in weight stereotype presence or self-esteem among the three groups of medical professionals. The data also suggests that there is no correlation between a medical professionals' self-esteem and weight stereotype presence. Suggestions for future research within this paper have discussed ways to improve the current study in order to create significant results.
ContributorsFisher, Bobbi Paige (Author) / Lewis, Stephen (Thesis director) / Edwards, Alison (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05