RESULTS II (=====Back to result I.
Results show that the significance (two-tail) of 30 of the 48 correlations
with the first dimension is p<.002 (.002
For the first task - the "free grading": 8 items' scores have correlations
with the first dimensions of the S.S.A.-I analysis that reach the significance
of p<.002, two-tail (the higher r=0.60) additional 9 have the significance of
.002
For the Q-Sort procedure 11 items' scores have correlations with the first
dimensions that reach the significance of p<.002, two-tail (the higher r=0.53)
additional 7 have the significance of p>.02; for the second dimension only one
reaches the significance of p<.02; for the third - one is high and 4 are low;
for the fourth there are only 4 of the lower significance; for the fifth only
a low one; for the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth dimensions there is no
correlation of p<.02; the tenth dimension has three correlations with
significance of p<.02 each.
As a whole, 32 of the 330 correlations are of p<.02 (when by chance less then
7 are expected); 12 of these are of p<.002 (less than one is expected by
chance).
In the following Tables 9 and 10, there appear the correlations between the
dimensions of the mathematical solution of the S.S.A.-I analysis of the 48
unmanipulated facial expressions of emotions (materials: 1a of the first task
of free grading) and the subgroup scores of the basic emotions (materials:
1b). Table 9 is for the free-grading (task 1) of the items of the 9 subgroups
and Table 10 is for the Q-Sort procedure of those items.
For the four negative emotions of the basic list - fear, anger, disgust, and
sadness, there are only small differentiations in the first task. In Table 9
of that task, one can see that they have very similar correlations with the
first, third, fifth and ninth dimensions.
In Table 10 of the Q-Sort task, one can see that the differentiation among the
relatively more valid subgroups - fear, anger and sadness - is sharper. The
correlation of the disgust subgroup which is less valid, becomes insignificant.
The two subgroups of contempt and shame that were included for control
purposes are also more differentiated in the Q-Sort procedure. Shame has
nearly the same pattern with the exception of the second dimension which is
more clearly the "contempt dimension" on the Q-Sort.
Contempt itself, changes its pattern greatly on the first, third, fourth and
fifth dimensions. Only its correlation with the second dimension is stable.
These findings converge with the nonsignificant correlation between the scores
of the two procedures. They contribute to the conclusion that the common
denominator of the scores of the two procedures of this subgroup, - which keep
it correlated to the second dimension - is not contempt.
The difference between the patterns of the correlations of the subgroup
scores of the two procedures, and dimensional scores (of the 48 1a items)
highlights the fact that the subjects changed the parameters of their
discrimination-activity when the task changed.
Another uncontrolled variable which contributed to the difference between the
two procedures is subjects' attitudes: some subjects responded with strong
emotional distress or relief to the change from free grading to Q-Sort.
It is noticeable that there is only a small measure of exclusiveness with
regard to the relations of the subgroups and the dimensions of the S.S.A.-I
analysis of the 48 mixed expressions.
Ideally for the theory, each subgroup should be correlated to a dimension of
its own. But due to the characteristics of the mathematical solutions and
their restrictions this seldom happens. The most restricting obstacle is that
till now, it is theoretically possible to achieve but hard to attain,
systematic rotations of the axes (dimensions) of the mathematical
multidimensional model. More problems stem from the relatively low content
validity of some of the subgroups which also contributes its share to the
blurring of the results. However, the integration of the results of the two
procedures is enlightening and enables us to examine the hypothesis of this
study.
The directions of the emotions in the space of the S.S.A.-I solution
The directions of the subgroups which are delineated below are according to
the pattern of the correlations of Tables 9 and 10 (with the help of the
correlations of the items themselves when needed).
The directions of surprise is along the first, the fifth (which is mainly the
surprise dimension) and the eighth dimensions and it looses its uniqueness in
the Q-Sort task.
The directions of interest - which seems to be of very low content validity -
is along the second dimension (the only dimension with which both groups'
items are correlated - and only in task 1). The high significance correlation
of this subgroup-score of the Q-Sort, with the tenth dimension is due to item
24 which seems to be loaded with the content of disgust.
The directions of fear is most prominent on the third dimension (the fear
dimension) and with a lesser measure along the first dimension (opposite that
of happiness) and the fourth dimension (opposite that of anger - as is often
found in other studies).
The directions of anger is along the first dimension (opposite to happiness
and along the fourth dimension (which is the anger dimension).
The directions of disgust which has a low content validity is not based on the
subgroup score. It is based on the items which were found to be highly loaded
with the content of disgust. Its direction is mainly along the tenth dimension
(the disgust dimension).
The directions of sadness is mainly along the first dimension - in the
opposite direction of happiness. Though it has a very clear direction (second
only to happiness) it does not have an independent direction of its own.
The directions of contempt is along the second dimension - a direction of its
own (the pro-social dimension of interest and compassion) and along the fourth
dimension - in the opposite direction of anger, which is not logical if the
content of this subgroup is really contemptuous.
Summing up, the above results give a substantial support for hypothesis one.
It was found that all seven basic emotions of the study (and the two
additional ones) are related to the dimensions used by the subjects when they
discriminated between the emotions of daily life. The main contradiction
between the results and the theory of this study is that sadness is not an
independent variable but an opposite one to the happiness.
The differences between the directions of the 9 subgroups in the model
The following table 10 contains the essentials of this examination. The upper
right- hand triangle is of the first task free gradings and the lower
left-hand triangle is of the Q-Sort procedure of the third task. In it, one
can see that all pairs of subgroups differ significantly. But, we cannot be
sure about the measure in which they are independent of each other when all
ten correlations are considered simultaneously, as there is still not
available a suitable test for this purpose.
*********************Table 11 about here*********************
The significance of the differences between the correlations of the subjects
was assessed by the Hotelling test for correlated coefficients of correlations
because the majority of the subgroups' scores are correlated (see Table 2).
Even when two correlations are significantly different mathematically, there
is still a possibility that the subgroups are in the same direction of the
multidimensional space of the mathematical solution of the S.S.A.-I. This can
happen when the two subgroups have the same multidimensional direction (and
emotional content) and differ only in the loading of the emotional content of
the items due to technical problems. Due of this and the lack of a suitable
test for the simultaneous testing of the ten dimensional differences between
the correlations of each pair of subgroups - the following findings are a
tentative first approximation.
The tests for the significance of the differences between subgroups were
conducted only when at least one of the subgroups was significantly correlated
with the subjects' score for that dimension.
In the free grading task there are 144 one-dimensional differences (out of
360) where at least one subgroup is significantly correlated to that
dimension, as well as 152 two-dimensional differences (out of 1620) in which
each of the dimensions of the pair is correlated to at least one of a pair of
subgroups.
47 of the above 144 one dimensional differences are significant
(combined probability of p<.0...(twenty zeros)015). Among the 152
two-dimensional differences, there were tested only those 98 in which none of
the one-dimensional differences (between the two subgroups) reached p<001 in
any of the relevant two dimensions (as in those cases the contribution of the
two dimensional difference can not be of high value to us). 19 of the above 98
differences are significant and their combined probability is p<.0000165.
In the third task of the Q-Sort there are 16 significant correlations between
subgroups and dimensions (out of the 90 of the matrix) with combined
significance of p<0.00032). 108 out of the 360 one-dimensional pairs of
subgroups' dimensional correlations include in them one of the above 16
significant correlation.
42 of those 108 are significantly different (the
combined probability of those differences is p<.0.....[twenty zeros]039).
In this procedure too, there were tested two-dimensional differences among
pairs of groups. Part of these as well as the 42 one-dimensional differences
are on the left-hand lower triangle of Table 11.
One can see from the convergence of the results of the two procedures that
the nine subgroups differed significantly from each other. One can see that
all 36 pairs of subgroups have at least one significant difference. These
results partially support the hypothesis of this study dealing with the
differences between the directions of the basic emotions within the universe
of discrimination among emotions.
However, these results also contradict our
claim that sadness is a basic emotion on its own and as such relatively
independent of the others. The findings about the bipolarity of
happiness-sadness highlight the bipolarity aspects of the basic emotions - an
aspect that was stressed by Darwin (1872), yet neglected by most of his
followers.
In the mathematical solution of the S.S.A.-I,
the contents of the above dimensions are expected to converge with the
axis-dimensions of the analysis. It is also expected - as was indeed found -
that subjects' scores (which are computed with a simplified version of the
S.S.A.P.-I) for these axes-dimensions will be relatively independent of each
other.
In order to interpret the contents of the dimensions as objectively as
possible in this study, we examined the correlations between these dimensions'
scores, and all original item scores (non-verbal materials 1b and 1c of both
procedures and the 148 words of task 2) as well as subgroup scores and the
dimensional scores of the subjects. All of them are Spearman nonparametric
correlations as the distributions of most of the scores are not "normal". All
levels of significance are two-tailed unless it is specifically stated that
they are one-tailed.
The highest correlations of this dimension with words - whose correlation with
this dimension is higher than with the other dimensions (and positive) are
with activism, attraction, concern, generosity, initiative, interest,
leniency, patience, potency, respect, right, sincere, tenderness, wakefulness.
It seems that the common denominator of the content of the items of the
subgroup of contempt (as regarded by the subjects of this study and which is
the cause of its correlation with the second dimension) contains leniency and
potency components but not scorn. (See the section about the validity of the
subgroups of basic emotions p37 and 42.)
The words that have significant and negative correlation with this dimension
(in the same direction of fear) are: astonishment (-0.17); disgust (-0.20);
droopy (-0.21); guilt (-0.16); panic (-0.21); remorse (-0.20); servility
(-0.19).
In the Q-Sort procedure no subgroup and only two items are positively
correlated with this dimension - one is of dubious content: disgust no. 15 and
the other is of an artificial mixtures whose content is surprise + questioning
(+0.20, p<02). One item - contempt no.7 is negatively correlated to this
dimension.
The highest positive correlations with words are with anger, caution,
compassion, craving, curiosity, daring, disappointment, doze, excitement,
potency, superiority, suspicion, firmness - all of .002>p<.02 - and with
appetite, skepticism and stupefaction - of p<.002. Not even one of the words
is negatively correlated with this dimension. The most suitable words to
summarize the above content is vigilance or wariness.
The content of this dimension is: troubled (preoccupied- guilt- worry-
frustration) versus relief.
The eighth dimension - seems to have the content of contempt
In the Q-Sort procedure, only surprise no.18 (-0.16, p<.022) and one of the
"neutral" mixtures (+0.14, p<.05) are correlated with this dimension.
Among the words, the significant correlations are with anger (-0.14, p<.05);
contempt (-0.24, p<.001); desire (-0.16, p<.021); disqualification (-0.20,
p<.004); grateful (-0.20, p<.004); greediness (-0.14, p<.05); humiliation
(-0.15, p<.05); misery (-0.19, p<.007) mockery (-0.14, p< .05) superiority
(-0.19, p<.007).
Among the words, the correlations are with concern (+0.16); decisiveness
(+0.14) disappointment (-0.16); hate (-0.15); humiliation (-0.15); interest
(+0.15); love (+0.15); satisfaction (+0.15) - all of p<.05, and amused
(+0.19); depression (-0.17); longing (+0.19); rigor (+0.20); vigilance
(+0.18) - all of p<.02; and contempt(-0.22, p<.002).
The examination of the correlations of love and hate with the other dimensions
(their correlations with this dimension are higher than any of the other seven
advanced dimensions), and the correlations of this dimension expounded above,
lead to the conclusion that the content of the contradiction - love versus
hate - converges with the content of this dimension.
Among the words, the significant correlations are with activity (-0.17,
p<.02); conciliated (-0.14, p<.05); excitement (-0.14, p<.05); rigor
(-0.18, p<.02); righteousness (-.21, p<.004); satisfaction (-0.21, p<.004).
The conclusion from the examination of the content of the dimensions is that
the main dimensions converge with the main basic emotions as was predicted by
the first hypothesis derived from the evolutionary theory of this study.
However, there are some reservations:
Following the proposition of reservations, we conclude that the results
essentially support the first concrete hypothesis of the study and at the same
time supply the most needed for support for the family of evolutionary
theories of emotion.
The coefficient of alienation of the nine S.S.A.-I dimensional analysis is as
follows: for two-dimensions - 0.169; for three - 0.121; for four 0.095; for
five - 0.083; for six - 0.073; for seven - 0.063; for eight - 0.057; for nine
- 0.051; and for ten dimensions - 0.047.
Those of the second dimension are alertness + firmness on one side versus
habitualness + serenity on the other.
The above two dimensions are of a clear concrete content. The first is of
restless- depression versus its opposition - calm-happiness. It is clear how
some theorists make of it abstraction and call it the "Evaluative dimension".
The content of the second is of a firm alert (caused many times a day by the
many challenges that occur in a competitive society), versus the habitual
relaxation (of the background time between challenges of the less nervous
people). It is clear how it can be "abstracted" to fit the "Dynamism-
dimension" that was found frequently in two-dimensional analysis (according to
articles by Snider & Osgood, 1969).
The content of the first dimension is mainly of the concrete content of
depression and distress versus its opposite - contentment. It can be seen how
it matches that of the activity of the inborn structure of "separation
distress" (or as it is called by Izard, 1971 - the basic emotion distress).
The content of this dimension can be "abstracted" to fit the first dimension
of the "thrifty" cognitive approach or that of the evaluative dimension of
Osgood's semantic differential technique.
The content of the third dimension fits that of the inborn structure that
causes the bi-polar continuum of pride-shame which is better known by the name
of the basic emotion shame. It was suitable to abstraction as the Potency
dimension - the third dimension of the thrifty cognitive approach (and Osgood
as well).
The above results are a clear-cut refutation of the second hypotheses of this
study. They deal a severe blow to the theoretical efforts we made with the aim
of reconciling the contradiction between the evolutionary theories of emotions
and those of the thrifty cognitive approach.
In the following chapters of discussion and conclusion we offer a solution
with the aim of reconciling between our results and our theory.
The 10 dimensions' inter correlations show that only one of the correlations
is significant - r=-0.20, p<0.004 (two-tail). This may be the result of uneven
sampling of the emotional domain due to our unintentional bias or due to the
bias of the language itself.
The following interpretation of the content of each of the ten dimensions of
the 96 emotional words is mainly based on the convergence of information drawn
from two sources: One is the content of the words that are on the two margins
of each dimension - the classical way - and the other is the above 10 by 300
correlation matrix.
The significant correlations between it and dimensions of the facial
expressions are with the anger dimension (+0.29 p<.001) and with the shame
dimension (-0.19 p<.007).The content of this dimension is mainly of
boldness, firmness and pride versus embarrassment, fatigue and shame.
The only significant correlation with a subgroup is with interest ( 0.18,
p<.02). Besides its negative correlations with artificial facial expression
items, it is also positively correlated with mixtures of anger + disgust and
anger + contempt(both of r=+0.21, p<.004).
The fifth dimension is also significantly correlated with the second dimension
of the facial expressions whose content is of positiveness and superiority
(leniency) attitudes to the others (0.15 p<.036). The content of this
dimension is mainly of pity, leniency and compassion.
The sixth dimension - longing versus skepticism (and astonishment)
It is significantly correlated with the subgroup of surprise (-0.15, p<.05).
There are positive correlations with basic emotion items of distress no. 11
(+0.15 p<.05) and the low validity disgust no. 32 (+0.19, p<.02).
There is a significant correlation between it and the surprise dimension (of
the facial expressions - (-0.14 p<.05) and a near significant one with the
disgust dimension (+0.14 p<.055). The content of this dimension is mainly of
the dreariness of the daily obligations versus fun.
The significant correlations with artificial facial expressions are: surprise
no. 26 (-0.20 p<.004); one mixture of enjoyment + anger and one of disgust +
fear (both of r=-0.19, p<.02) - of the free grading and with anger no. 28
(-0.18 p<.02); disgust + hesitation (-0.17 p<.02); disgust + fear (-0.23
p<.002); sadness + anger (+0.16p<.02); sadness + enjoyment (+0.18 p<.02) - of
the Q-Sort procedure.
There is a negative correlation (of -0.19, p<.006) between this dimension and
the anger dimension of the facial expressions.
The highest correlations with words (p< .002) are for: contempt, loneliness
and skepticism versus caution, disregard, embitterment and fatigue. Following
(with .002>p<.02) are boredom and involvement versus anger, confidence, blur,
despair, guilt, haughtiness, imposer, pain, restlessness, servility, sleepy
and slumber.
A possible common denominator for the words that are in the direction of
caution and disregard is the depression syndrome - guilt, despair and pain,
and their results - restlessness and fatigue.
The most significant correlation with artificial facial expressions is that of
contempt no. 7 (+0.20 p<.004) of the free grades. There is a correlation of
0.18 (p<.012) between the guilt direction of the ninth dimension and the guilt
direction of the sixth dimension of the facial expressions.
The words whose correlation is in the direction of the hostility are:
annoyance, boredom, fatigue, hate, pain, yearning - all of .002
***Table 12 about here***
The matrix of 100 correlations between the two sets of 10 dimensions contains
10 with p<.01 and among them 6 are of p<.001. There is a clear convergence of
the first dimension of each set but not identity. It seems that in the
universe of emotion there is a slightly different direction for each of them.
This phenomenon is the root of the significant correlation of each of the two
with the second dimension of the other set.
As the two sets of items that are the basis of each multidimensional analysis
sample the emotional domain in a different way; and as the mathematical
procedure of the analysis is dealing with variance that is, partly, not
systematic - it is not realistic to expect a perfect fit between the
two sets of due to the power of the new methodology, there is a significant
convergence between six of the dimensions of the facial expressions, and eight
of the dimensions of the 96 words of emotion.
Our results show clearly that the dimensions of discrimination among words of
emotion have a concrete content that fit results of previous studies about
basic inborn emotional variables. Our study undermines the firm belief in the
"parsimonious" models of two or three dimensions that were offered for the
emotional domain. It seems that methodological explanations - which are
presented in the following chapter - are in more accord with our results. This
explanation conforms to the criticism of Ekman, et al. (1982) about the
methodology of research in the field of facial expression of emotion. It is
also more parsimonious than the theory we offered as it does not call for two
sets of emotional variables.
For suggestions and complains click on:
ilan@shalif.com
The correlations between the dimensions and the 24 artificial mixtures of
basic emotion
The correlations between those items (materials: 1c) and the ten dimensions
are very similar to those of the 33 items of basic emotions. For the free
gradings 36 are of p<.02 and 21 of them are of the p<.002 level. For the
Q-Sort - 20 are of p<.02 and 8 of them are of the p<.002 level. These mixtures
were originally intended to be of a narrower spectrum of emotions than the 33
items of the basic emotions (materials: 1b). However the distribution of their
correlations with the ten dimensions are very similar to that of the 33 items
of 1/b.
The correlations between the 10 dimensions and the 148 words
126 of the words of materials: 2 (the second task) are correlated to the
subjects' scores for the ten dimensions of the unmanipulated facial
expressions of emotion (mixed expressions of daily life) - p<.02, two-tail
(only 3 are expected by chance). These correlations are divided unevenly)
among each of the ten dimensions. 89 words are significantly correlated to the
first dimension - p<.02, two-tail (65 of them are of p<.002). For the second
dimension 23 are of p<.02 and 27 are of p<.002). For the third there are 10 of
the p<.02; for the fourth 10 of p<.02 and one of p<.002; for the fifth 14 of
p<.02 and 4 of p<.002; for the sixth - 4 of p<.02; for the seventh - 3 of
p<0.2 (as is expected by chance alone); for the eighth 4 are of p<0.02 and one
of p<.002; for the ninth, 6 are of p<.02 and one of p<.002; for the tenth
dimension there are only 4 correlations of p<.02 (two-tail).
The correlations between the dimension scores and those of the 9 subgroups of
basic emotions
The correlations between the subgroup scores and the dimension scores are the
basic means for interpreting the relations between the basic emotion brain
structures and the dimensions of discrimination among the emotions of daily
life. Though the content validity of the items and the subgroups was found to
be wanting, they are generally a sound enough base for the interpretation of
the contents of the dimensions and for the examination of the hypothesis of
this study.
Table No. 9: The correlations between the 9 subgroups of basic emotions of
the free grading (task 1) and the dimensions of the S.S.A.-I analysis of
the 48 unmanipulated facial expressions of mixed emotions (of task 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dimension| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|Emotion\ | | | | | | | | | | |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Happiness|0.63!|0.13 |-.05 |0.10 |0.07 |-.07 |0.16+|0.03 |0.12 |-.03 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Surprise |0.25!|0.09 |-.11 |0.06 |0.17*|-.03 |0.06 |-.16+|-.02 |0.02 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Interest |0.16*|0.24!|-.07 |0.01 |0.14+|-.02 |0.02 |0.07 |0.07 |0.04 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Fear |-.22!|-.05 |-.30!|0.03 |0.11 |-.00 |0.10 |-.08 |-.16+|-.05 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Anger |-.27!|-.01 |-.25!|0.13 |0.11 |-.03 |0.01 |-.11 |-.16*|-.04 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Disgust |-.14+|-.00 |-.29!|0.04 |0.12 |0.06 |0.05 |-.07 |-.15+|-.02 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Sadness |-.35!|-.02 |-.24!|-.01 |0.13 |0.11 |-.01 |-.06 |-.13 |-.07 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Contempt |-.16+|0.22!|-.12 |-.00 |0.07 |-.03 |-.00 |-.06 |-.06 |-.10 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Shame |-.27!|0.25!|0.02 |-.12 |0.04 |0.03 |-.15+|0.04 |-.05 |0.01 |
|======================================================================*
"!" p<.002;
"*" .0021>p and p<.02;
"+" .02 >p and p<.05;
all two-tail. r=0.116 p=.05 one tail
Table No. 10: The correlations between the 9 subgroups of basic emotions of
the Q-Sort (task 3) and the dimensions of the S.S.A.-I analysis of the
48 unmanipulated facial expressions of mixed emotions (of task 1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dimension| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|Emotion\ | | | | | | | | | | |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Happiness|0.56!|-.05 |0.04 |0.10 |-.03 |-.07 |0.16+|0.02 |0.17*|0.01 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Surprise |0.31!|-.02 |0.05 |0.05 |0.01 |-.08 |0.07 |-.10 |0.11 |0.05 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Interest |0.07 |-.02 |0.08 |-.01 |-.05 |-.01 |0.01 |-.04 |0.04 |0.20* |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Fear |-.15+|-.11 |-.19!|-.15+|-.04 |0.13 |0.04 |-.10 |-.07 |-.14+ |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Anger |-.23!|0.03 |-.11 |0.22!|0.07 |-.09 |0.01 |-.00 |-.01 |0.02 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Disgust |0.03 |-.11 |-.08 |0.04 |0.05 |-.02 |-.03 |0.03 |-.09 |0.10 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Sadness |-.42!|-.04 |-.04 |-.06 |0.01 |0.06 |-.08 |0.07 |-.13 |0.02 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Contempt |-.06 |0.17*|0.11 |-.16*|-.13 |0.01 |-.03 |0.04 |0.05 |-.08 |
|---------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|------|
|Shame |-.33!|0.11 |0.14 |-.04 |-.10 |0.08 |-.17*|0.11 |-.05 |-.02 |
|======================================================================
"!" p<.002;
"*" .0021>p and p<.02;
"+" .02 >p and p<.05;
all two-tail. r=0.116 p=.05 one tail
When one is tracing the directions in the mathematical multidimensional model
of the S.S.A.-I analysis, not in the usual way of visually scanning the
scatter of the items but in the new adaptation of the S.S.A.P.-I, one is
mainly relying on correlations. The correlations are those that are between
subjects' dimensional scores and subjects' scores for the relevant items and
variables included in the study but not in the S.S.A.-I analysis.
Plate No. 1: The direction of happiness and sadness in the plane of first and
ninth dimensions.
first dimension
happiness - r=+0.56 ^ *H
| *a
| *p
| *p
| *i
|*n
S*e happiness - r=+0.16
----------------a*s--------------> ninth dimension
sadness - r=-0.13 d*s
n*|
e* |
s* |
s* |
sadness - r=-0.42 |
dimension.
A two dimensional projection of that cube - the projection of the first
dimension against the ninth dimension is shown in the above Plate. In it, the
equivalent bipolar vector is the sum of the two one-dimensional bi-polar
vectors which represent the subgroups' contradictory correlations with these
two dimensions.
The best measure of the relative independence between the subgroups would be
the computation of the angles between their directions in a model which is
beyond our resources. The second best is the testing of the significance of
the differences between the correlations of the subgroups and the dimensions
of the S.S.A.-I analysis.
The significance of the differences demonstrated in Table No.11
In an array of coefficients of correlations as in other multivaraete tests,
the first step is the test for all the results simultaneously. In the matrix
of correlations between the 9 subgroups of basic emotions and the 10
dimensions of the 48 items of mixed and unmanipulated expressions of each
procedure there are 90 coefficients.
Table No. 11: The difference between subgroups' correlations in task 1 and 3
with the dimensions (and pairs of them) of the 48 items of materials: 1/a of
task 1*. The higher triangle is for task 1, the lower is for task 3.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sub *Happi *Sur *Inte * Fear * Anger *Disgust*Sadness*Con * Shame
group* ness* prise* rest* * * * * tempt*
Ha * D1;D7* D1=.38* D1=.47* D1=.85* D1=.91* D1=.78* D1=.98* D1=.79* D1=.91
pp * * * 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001
in * D1 * *D5+8=17*D2+5=13*D3+9=44*D3+9=41*D3+9=43* D3=.19* D2=.10* D7=.31
ess * D7;D9 * 0.0047* 0.0384* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0287* 0.0668* 0.001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Su * D1=.25* D1;D5* D8=.24* D1=.47* D1=.53* D1=.40* D1=.60* D1=.41* D1=.53
rp * 0.0001* * D8* 0.0003* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001
ri *D5+8=13* * * D2=.14*D3+9=23*D3+9=23*D3+9=22* * D2=.13*D7+8=32
se * 0.0516*D1 * 0.0192* 0.0005* 0.0047* 0.0013* * 0.0446* 0.0002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I * D1=.50* D1=.25* D1;D2* D3=.27* D4=.22* * D1=.49* D2=.20* D1=.39
n * 0.0001* 0.0026* * D5* 0.0048* 0.0132* see * 0.0001* 0.0301* 0.0001
t *D10=.19*D10=.15* * *D10=.34*D10=.18* discu *D10=.18*D2+3=22* D7=.17
e * 0.0212* 0.0526*see dis* 0.0005* 0.0392* sion * 0.0392* 0.0179* 0.0495
re * * *cussion* * * * *D10=.28*D10=.22
st * * * D10* * * * * 0.0030* 0.0188
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
F * D1=.71* D3=.24* D1=.38* D1;D3* D4=.10* *** * D1=.13* D2=.27*D2+7=41
e * 0.0001* 0.0080* 0.0001* * D9* 0.0069* * 0.0087* 0.0001* 0.0001
a * D3=.23* * D2=.28* * * * * *D3+9=20*D3+9=29
r * 0.0179* * 0.0003* * * *** * * 0.0007* 0.0001
*4+10=31* *D3+9=31*D1;D3 * * * * *
* 0.0021* * 0.0001*D4;D10 * * * * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A * D1=.79* D4=.17* D1=.44* D4=.36* D1;D3* D1=.13* *** * D2=.24*D2+7=28
n * 0.0001* 0.0548* 0.0001* 0.0001* D9* 0.0049* * * 0.0001* 0.0002
g * * * D2=.25* * * * * * * D3=.12*D3+9=26
e * * * 0.0019* * * * * * * 0.0418* 0.0006
r * * *D3+9=27* * * * * * *
* * * 0.0006* *D1;D4 * * *** * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D * D1=.54* D1=.29* D1=.31*D10=.24* D4=.18* D1;D3* D1=.21* D2=.23* D1=.13
i * 0.0001* 0.0026* 0.0001* 0.0129* 0.0446* * D9* 0.0001* 0.0002* 0.0485
s * *(D9=.21* D2=.24*D10+D4=* * * * *D3+9=19* D2=.26
g * *0.0294)* 0.0019* 0.31* * see * * 0.0016* 0.0005
u * * *D3+9=30* 0.0018* * discus* * *D3+9=28
st * * * 0.0001* * * sion* * * 0.0001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S * D1=.98* D1=.73* D1=.51* D1=.27* D1=.19* D1=.44* D1;D3* D1=.19*D2+7=31
a * 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0009* 0.0179* 0.0001* * 0.0014* 0.0001
d * D9=.30* * D2=.25*D3+4=16* D4=.28* * * * D2=.24* D3=.26
n * 0.0069* * 0.0013* 0.0401* 0.0024* * * * 0.0002* 0.0003
e * * * D3=.17* * * * *D3+9=14*
ss * * * 0.0256* * * *D1 * 0.0212*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
C * D1=.62* D1=.37* D1=.32* D2=.28* D4=.38* D2=.28* D1=.36* D1;D2* D1=.12
o * 0.0001* 0.0003* 0.0001* 0.0044* 0.0001* 0.0016* 0.0001* * 0.0427
n * D2=.23* D2=.19* * D3=.30* D2=.14* D4=.20* D2=.21* * * D7=.14
t * 0.0207* 0.0446* * 0.0024* 0.0823* 0.0188* 0.0192* * * 0.0217
em *D2+4=35*D2+4=29* *D2+3=43*D2+4=45*D2+4=36*D2+4=18* *D1+7=15
pt * 0.0006* 0.0052* * 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0322*D2;D4 * 0.0113
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
S * D1=.89* D1=.64* D1=.44* D3=.33* D4=.25* D1=.35*(D2=.15* D1=.27* D1;D2
h * 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0001* 0.0014* 0.0045* 0.0002* p<.05)* 0.0004* D7
a * D7=.33* D7=.24* D5=.11* D7=.21* D7=.18* D7=.14*(D3=.18* D7=.14* *
m * 0.0021* 0.0202* 0.1020* 0.0287* 0.0307* 0.0985* p<.05)* 0.0427* *
e *D7+9=41* * D7=.16*D3+7=41* *D2+3=31*(nonsig* D4=.13*
* 0.0002* * 0.0244* 0.0001* * 0.0013* corr.)* 0.0643*D1;D7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* According to the Hotelling test for the difference between coefficients of
correlations that are correlated (from Guilford, 1965, p190-191) as
the majority of the subgroups' scores are correlated (see Table 2).
**For each difference one line for the size and one for the significance.
The content of the 10 dimensions of the S.S.A.-I analysis, of the 48 facial
expressions of unmanipulated emotional mixtures
According to our theory and hypothesis, the structure of the emotional domain,
with regard to dimensions of discrimination among daily facial expressions and
experience of emotion, is of nearly orthogonal dimensions. In this space the
content of the dimensions is supposed to converge with that of the
already-found basic emotions.
The first dimension - Happiness (pleasure) versus Sadness
The subjects' scores of this dimension correlate with those of the subgroup
happiness: +0.63, and that of sadness: -0.42 - both p<.001.
Its highest correlations are with the following words: happiness (+0.52);
satisfied (+0.52); depression (-0.45); distress (-0.45) - all p<.001.
The highest are attraction (+0.30); concern (+0.30); and wakefulness (+0.32).
The words that have significant and negative correlation with this dimension
are drowsiness, doze, fatigue.
The third dimension - the Fear dimension
In the free grading procedure all four negative emotions: fear, anger, disgust
and sadness; are correlated with the third dimension (p<.002) but only for the
fear subgroup all four items are significantly correlated with this dimension.
In the Q-Sort only the fear subgroup is correlated significantly with it
(-0.19, p<.002).
The fourth dimension - the Anger dimension or firmness versus embarrassment
In the free grading, the higher correlation with this dimension is of the
anger subgroup: r=0.13 0.05>
The fifth dimension - the Surprise dimension (stupefaction)
In the free grading the surprise subgroup is correlated with this dimension
(+0.17) as well as the interest one (+0.14); both are of p<.02. Those
correlations are mainly due to item surprise no. 18 (+0.21) and for item
interest no. 8 (+0.20) that was found in the examination of validity of items
to be loaded with surprise rather than with interest. One item - disgust no.
5 is negatively correlated to this dimension (-0.22, p<.002).
The sixth dimension - troubled versus lightness
None of the subgroups nor the items of basic emotions of the free grading
procedures are correlated with this dimension. Only mixture no. 1 of "neutral"
content is correlated here. In the Q-Sort we find nearly the same situation.
Only fear no. 3 and mixture no. 23 of sadness + disgust reach the level of
p<.02.
The seventh dimension - the Shame dimension
The seventh dimension is correlated to happiness - both procedures +0.16 - and
with shame - on the free grading: -0.15 and on the Q-Sort: -0.17. The words
that are significantly correlated with this dimension are: bitterness (-0.15);
depression (-0.15); envy (-0.17); happiness (+0.18); indifference (-0.18);
rigor (+0.16); satisfaction (+0.14) - the significance of all is of .01
This dimension is correlated in the free grading procedure with the surprise
subgroup (-0.16 p<.05); with anger no. 4 (-0.15, p<.05); anger no. 12 (which
is highly loaded with disgust - -0.14 p<.05); disgust no. 15 (not valid -
-0.16, p<.022); surprise no. 10 (-0.22, p<.002).
The ninth dimension - love versus hate
In the free grading the subgroups of anger, fear and disgust are negatively
correlated to this dimension (p<.05 to p<.02). In the Q-Sort only the
happiness subgroup is correlated with it (+0.17, p<.02).
The tenth dimension - the Disgust dimension
In the free grading none of the subgroups and only one of the items of the
basic emotions - that of contempt no.33 (-0.17, p<.02) - are correlated with
this dimension.
From the above correlations it seems that the content of this dimension is of
disgust versus satisfaction.
The analysis of the matrix of correlations between the subjects' scores for
the ten dimensions and all the other scores produces a relatively clear
picture. This is so although the content validity of some subgroups, items and
all the methodology of item building is deficient. This was made possible by
the new technique which can be used to extract meaningful variance by the
convergence of a plethora of scores.
The first reservation relates to the bi-polarity of the basic emotions: a) it
was found that sadness is not an independent basic emotion; b) most of the 10
dimensions reveal a bi-polar content.
The dimensions of discrimination among the 96 words of emotion
In order to examine the feasibility of the second hypothesis of this study,
the 96 words of emotion of materials 2a were analyzed by S.S.A.-I of
Guttman-Lingoes series (Lingoes, 1973) - all the nine analysis of 2 to 10
dimensions were done. Then the subjects' dimensional scores were computed for
the ten-dimensional analyses, by the Shalif et. al. (1981) adaptation of the
S.S.A.P.-I of the same Guttman lingoes series. Next, the Spearman correlations
between those dimensional scores and all the original scores of the subjects
and their subgroup scores were computed.
The two-dimensional analysis
The best way to represent the content of the dimensions of this analysis is by
the words that are near the two margins of each dimension.
The three-dimensional analyses
Those near the margins of the first dimension are depression + distress +
misery + frustration versus relaxed + at ease + satisfied + confidence. Those
of the second dimension are alertness + firmness + hope + yearning versus
habitualness + serenity + indifference + boredom. Those near the margins of
the third dimension are pride + haughtiness versus fatigue + longing + caution.
The ten dimensional analysis of the 96 words of emotion
In order to deepen the evaluation of the hypothesis of the study, the matrix
of correlations between the subjects' dimensional scores for these ten
dimensions and their 300 relevant scores was re-examined. (The 300 scores are
of the 10 dimensions themselves; the 148 words of materials: 2a, 2b, 2c; of
the 114 scores of the 57 artificial facial expressions of the two procedures -
materials: 1b and 1c and the 18 subgroup scores of the 9 basic emotions of the
two procedures; and the 10 dimensional scores of the analysis of the 48 mixed
and unmanipulated facial expressions.)
The first dimension - contentment versus distress
The words that are near the margins of this dimension are misery + distress on
one side and calmness + at-ease + contentment on the other. Its highest
correlation with subgroups are with happiness (+0.57) and sadness (-0.40).
The words that have the highest correlations with it are: at-ease (+0.69);
calmness (+0.74) contentment (+0.69); depression (-0.67); distress (-0.69);
happiness (+0.67); sadness (-0.67); satisfied (+0.72) - p<.001 for all of them.
The highest correlation between this dimension and any dimension of the 48
unmanipulated facial expressions of mixtures of emotions is with that of the
happiness- sadness one - r=+0.60 p<.001. The content of this dimension is
mainly of calmness, satisfaction and contentment versus depression, distress
and sadness.
The second dimension - alertness versus serenity
The words that are on the edges of this dimension are alertness + tension +
curiosity on one side and serenity + disrespect + lightness on the other. Its
highest correlations with subgroups are with happiness (negative) and with
sadness and shame (positive).
The third dimension - pride versus shame (embarrassment)
The marginal-words are pride + firmness + haughtiness versus fatigue +
embarrassment. The highest correlations with words are: activity (+0.32);
anxiety (-0.27); boldness (+0.41) courage (+0.43); decisiveness (+0.31);
embarrassment (-0.31); fatigue (-0.34); firmness (+0.53); habitualness
(-0.25); pride (+0.46); shame (-0.25); sleepy (-0.27); slumber (-0.25);
superiority +0.42) and weakness (-0.27) - all are of p<.001.
Its highest correlations with subgroups are with sadness (-0.20, p<.02); with
shame (-0.14, p<.05) and anger (+0.19, p<.02).
The fourth dimension - surprise (and excitement) versus indifference
The marginal words are indifference + boredom + habitualness versus surprise +
adoration curiosity + shame + panic.
The highest correlations with words are: boredom (+0.24); habitualness
(+0.16); indifference (+0.42) and sleepy (+0.16) versus admiration (-0.39);
excitement (-0.46); fondness (-0.40); gratitude (-0.48); love (-0.43); panic
(-0.44); shame (-0.43) and surprise(-0.59).
The fifth dimension - the dimension of Pity
The marginal words are pity + compassion + leniency versus sympathy +
curiosity + surprise + helpless.
The highest correlations (and mathematically negative - the same direction as
that of pity) with words are with: belonging (-0.33); boldness (-0.38);
cautious (-0.32); compassion (-0.53) conciliated (-0.32); firmness (-0.31);
generosity (-0.34); hope (-0.33); intensity (-0.37); leniency (-0.56); pain
(-0.30); pity (-67); tenderness (-0.41); tolerance (-0.30) - all are of
p<.001. Only two words are positively correlated to it - confusion (+0.15
p<.038) and love (+0.17 p<.018). This result is also an indication of the
imperfection of our sampling of the emotional domain.
The marginal words are longing + compassion + leniency versus astonishment +
suspiciousness + skepticism + curiosity + caution + serenity. The placement
here of serenity seems to be a result of the oddities of the S.S.A.-I
program).
The seventh dimension - responsibility and involvement
The marginal words are routine versus indifference + longing + skepticism. The
highest correlations are with the words: animosity (-0.27); attraction
(-0.30); delight (-0.30); indifference (-0.29); longing (-0.31); routine
(+040); mirth (-0.24) and worry (+0.25).
The eighth dimension - patience and loneliness versus longing and love
The marginal words are hope + longing + excitement + desire + delighted versus
loneliness + patience + involvement.
The content of this dimension is mainly of patience (of the abstainers) versus
the cluster of emotions of those preoccupied with love relationships.
The ninth dimension: guilt and depression versus contempt and disregard
The marginal words are caution + fatigue + disregard versus loneliness +
contempt + skepticism.
The tenth dimension - hostility versus conciliation
The marginal words are conciliated + serenity versus hate + pain + fatigue.
The words that are of the p<.002 correlation with this dimension are all of
the conciliated direction: alarm, alertness, adoration, conciliated,
contentment, desire, disappointment, longing, repulsion, right, serenity.Table no. 12: The matrix of correlations between the ten dimensions of the
words and the ten dimensions of the facial expressions
_________________________________________________________________________
Dimension | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
*Facial |Happi|Inter| F | A | Su |Troub| S | Co |Love |Disgu|
*express |ness-| est| e | n | rp |led -| h | nt | _ |st-Sa|
* ions|Sad |in ot| a | g | ri |Light| a | em | |tisfa|
Words * | ness| hers| r | er | se | ness| me | pt | Hate|ction|
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1 Distress -| 0.60| 0.25|-0.12| 0.14|-0.04|-0.08|-0.10| 0.02| 0.13|-0.01|
Contentment|0.001|0.001|0.094|0.044| * | * | * | * |0.065| * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
2 Alertness |-0.28| 0.10|-0.13| 0.08| 0.23| 0.17| 0.05| 0.00| 0.12| 0.05|
- Serenity|0.001| * |0.060| * |0.001|0.018| * | * |0.097| * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
3 pride - | 0.01| 0.06| 0.01| 0.29| 0.05| 0.01|-0.19| 0.09|-0.03|-0.04|
Embarrassment| * | * | * |0.001| * | * |0.007| * | * | * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
4 Excitement|-0.06|-0.07|-0.09| 0.00| 0.00|-0.07| 0.05|-0.10|-0.04| 0.07|
Indifference| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
5 Pity | 0.04| 0.15|-0.01|-0.03| 0.05|-0.06| 0.03| 0.02| 0.10|-0.10|
| * |0.036| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
6 Longing - | 0.12|-0.11| 0.06| 0.02|-0.16| 0.24| 0.08| 0.01| 0.04|-0.03|
Scepticism|0.093| * | * | * |0.022|0.001| * | * | * | * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
7 (Ir)respon|-0.07| 0.02|-0.02| 0.05| 0.14|-0.08|-0.03|-0.05| 0.04| 0.14|
sibility | * | * | * | * |0.050| * | * | * | * |0.055|
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
8 Patience |-0.05| 0.09| 0.01|-0.19| 0.00|-0.01| 0.05|-0.03|-0.04| 0.04|
- Love| * | * | * |0.006| * | * | * | * | * | * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
9 Guilt - | 0.05|-0.05|-0.02|-0.05| 0.04| 0.18|-0.06| 0.04|-0.01|-0.08|
Contempt| * | * | * | * | * |0.012| * | * | * | * |
------------------------------------------------------------------------|
conciliation| 0.09| 0.11| 0.08| 0.08| 0.03|-0.09|-0.03|-0.02| 0.05|-0.10|
10 Hostility| * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * |
=========================================================================
* Significance is of P>0.10
Summary of the results of the examination of the second hypothesis
The results do not support the second hypothesis of this study and thus refute
our theoretical effort to reconcile the "parsimonious"-cognitive approach and
the evolutional approach.
http://members.tripod.com/~alternativ_psy
To the TOP