心理发展与教育 ›› 2016, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (6): 649-655.doi: 10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2016.06.02

• 认知与社会性发展 • 上一篇    下一篇

内、外部情绪标注对情绪作用的ERPs研究

岳鹏飞1, 杜婉婉1, 白学军2,3, 许远理1   

  1. 1. 信阳师范学院教育科学学院, 河南信阳 300074;
    2. 天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300074;
    3. 国民心理健康评估与促进协同创新中心, 天津 300074
  • 出版日期:2016-11-15 发布日期:2016-11-15
  • 通讯作者: 岳鹏飞,E-mail:ypf07@126.com;白学军,E-mail:psy-bxj@mail.tjnu.edu.cn E-mail:ypf07@126.com;psy-bxj@mail.tjnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:

    天津市科技计划项目“天津市民心理健康素质监测系统开发”(12ZCZDSF07100);天津市高等学校心理健康与行为调控创新团队(39),教育部人文社科青年项目(15YJC190027);信阳师范学院青年骨干教师项目(2014GGJS-08);信阳师范学院“南湖学者奖励计划”青年项目(Nanhu Scholars Program for Young Scholars of XYNU)。

Can Subjective Affect Labeling Dampen the Emotions?-ERPs study

YUE Pengfei1, DU Wanwan1, BAI Xuejun2,3, XU Yuanli1   

  1. 1. School of Education Science, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, China;
    2. Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 30074, China;
    3. Center of Cooperative Innovation for Assessment and Promotion of Mental Health, Tianjin 30074, China
  • Online:2016-11-15 Published:2016-11-15

摘要: 以往情绪标注的研究发现描述情绪面孔的情绪(外部情绪标注)可以降低被试的情绪。但是描述自己的情绪(内部情绪标注)结果如何尚存争议。研究采用了ERPs技术,以愉快和悲伤情绪面孔为实验材料,选择18名大学本科生为被试,比较了内部情绪标注、外部情绪标注及性别标注之间的差异。结果发现:外部情绪标注和性别标注相比,其LPP波幅均小于性别标注下LPP波幅,并且这种差异在Pz、CPz、Cz、FCz、Fz五个电极点均类似;而内部情绪标注和性别标注相比,其LPP波幅均小于性别标注下LPP波幅,但仅表现在Pz、CPz、Cz三个点上。这说明:无论内部情绪标注还是外部情绪标注,在命名后均能抑制情绪。研究结果支持阻断理论。

关键词: 外部情绪标注, 内部情绪标注, 性别标注

Abstract: Multiple studies suggest objective affect labeling can dampen affect-related responses, for example, the affect-related responses of participants were lower during labeling the emotional faces compared to control condition. However, there have dissimilar opinions about the effect of subjective affect labeling(i.e., labeling ones own emotion) on affect-related respondes. The present study used positive and negative emotional faces as experimental materials, with happy emotional face images as positive stimuli and sad emotional face images as negative stimuli. Half of these faces were male, and half were female. The research used a 3 (labeling types)×2 (emotion types) experimental design, in which there were three levels of labeling types:subjective affect labeling, objective affect labeling and gender labeling. And emotion types had two levels:sad and happiness. In the Experiment, the objective affect labeling condition referred to observing the facial emotion expressed in the description given below the face, and then selecting the appropriate word (angry or happy). Subjective affect labeling refers to observing the face pictures, and then selecting the appropriate word (angry or happy) accoding to the feeling of the paticipant. Gender labeling refers to observing the face pictures, and then choosing the right words for the face's gender (Li Na or Zhang Tao). If the subject believed the face images are men, they should choose the marked word "Zhang Tao", or "Li Na" if they believe the images are women. The results show that:the amplitudes of objective affect labeling in the LPP were lower, compared with gender labeling, regardless of positive emotion or negative emotion.

Key words: subjective affect labeling, objective affect labeling, gender labeling

中图分类号: 

  • B844

Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators:a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (6), 823.

Hajcak, Moser, & Simons. (2006).The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological Psychology, 71 (2),148-154.

Herbert, C., Sfärlea, A., & Blumenthal, T. (2013). Your emotion or mine:labeling feelings alters emotional face perception-an ERP study on automatic and intentional affect labeling. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7. 1-14

Kircanski, K., Lieberman, M. D., &Craske, M. G. (2012).Feelings into words:Contributions of language to exposure therapy. Psychological Science, 23, 1086-1091.

Lee, K. H., & Siegle, G. J. (2009). Common and distinct brain networks underlying explicit emotional evaluation:A meta-analytic study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7 (5), 521-534.

Lieberman, M. D. (2002). Reflexive and reflective judgment processes:A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Social judgments:Implicit and explicit processes, 34, 199-249.

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., P., Jennifer, H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18 (5), 421-428.

Lieberman, M. D., Inagaki, T. K., Tabibnia, G., & Crockett, M. J. (2011). Subjective responses to emotional stimuli during labeling, reappraisal, and distraction. Emotion, 11 (3), 468.

Lieberman, M. D., Jarcho, J. M., Berman, S., Naliboff, B. D., Suyenobu, B. Y., Mandelkern, M., & Mayer, E. A. (2004). The neural correlates of placebo effects:a disruption account. NeuroImage, 22 (1), 447-455.

Spinoza, B. (2000). Ethics. New York:Oxford University Press.

McRae, K., Taitano, E. K., & Lane, R. D. (2010). The effects of verbal labelling on psychophysiology:Objective but not subjective emotion labelling reduces skin-conductance responses to briefly presented pictures. Cognition and Emotion, 24 (5), 829-839.

Payer, Doris E., Lieberman, Matthew D., & London, Edythe D. (2011). Neural correlates of affect processing and aggression in methamphetamine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68 (3), 271-282.

Ramirez, G., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Writing about testing worries boosts exam performance in the classroom. Science, 331 (6014), 211.

Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D., & Craske, M. G. (2008). The lasting effect of words on feelings:Words may facilitate exposure effects to threatening images. Emotion, 8 (3), 307.

白学军, 岳鹏飞. (2013). 情绪标注对负性情绪的抑制:来自自主神经活动的证据. 心理学报, 45 (7), 715-724.

邓欢, 江琦, 马静, 纪婷婷, 朱梦音. (2013). 大学生情绪标签与性别标签加工时程差异的事件相关电位研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 27 (10), 796-800.

郭晶晶, 吕锦程. (2014). 语言标识对情绪体验的影响. 心理科学37 (06), 1296-1301.

龚栩, 黄宇霞, 王妍, 罗跃嘉. (2011). 中国面孔表情图片系统的修订. 中国心理卫生杂志, 25 (1), 40-46.

岳鹏飞, 白学军. (2013). 主观报告下情绪标注对正负性情绪的作用. 信阳师范学院学报 (哲学社会科学版), 33 (6), 44-47.

岳鹏飞, 杜婉婉, 白学军, 许远理. (2015). 情绪标注对情绪的抑制发生在何时:一项ERPs研究. 心理学报,47 (09), 1124-1132.

汪海彬, 卢家楣, 姚本先等(2015).职前教师情绪复杂性对情绪面孔加工的影响-来自行为、ERP和眼动的证据.心理学报, 47 (1),50-64.
[1] 陈庆秋, 徐华, 吴南. 助人情境中幼儿知恩图报意识的发展[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 403-409.
[2] 徐璐璐, 吴佩佩, 贺雯. 贫困大学生元刻板印象威胁对群际关系的影响:群际焦虑的中介和自尊的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 426-433.
[3] 李维佳, 胡清芬. 空间再定向任务中心理表征的多样性——来自虚拟现实实验的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 385-394.
[4] 向玲, 范淑娴, 陈家利, 王宝玺. 学习困难青少年认知控制特点研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 410-416.
[5] 侯芬, 伍新春, 邹盛奇, 刘畅, 黄彬彬. 父母教养投入对青少年亲社会行为的影响:亲子依恋的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 417-425.
[6] 阚佳琦, 刘斯漫, 时嘉惠, 闫琦, 郭俊斌, 王争艳. 祖辈共同看护背景下母亲和祖辈将心比心、母子依恋与婴幼儿认知的关系:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 395-402.
[7] 田云龙, 喻承甫, 林霜, 叶诗敏, 张晓琳, 刘毅, 路红, 张卫. 父母体罚、学校参与与青少年网络游戏成瘾:亲子关系的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 461-471.
[8] 李若璇, 朱文龙, 刘红瑞, 姚梅林. 家长教育期望对学业倦怠的影响:家长投入的中介及家庭功能的调节[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 489-496.
[9] 彭源, 朱蕾, 王振宏. 父母情绪表达与青少年问题行为:亲子依恋、孤独感的多重中介效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 504-512.
[10] 江永强, 邵云天, 蔺秀云, 何先友. 初中生班级团体依恋、自悯与学习倦怠的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 472-480.
[11] 范航, 朱转, 苗灵童, 刘燊, 张林. 父母婚姻冲突对青少年抑郁情绪的影响:一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 481-488.
[12] 叶宝娟, 朱黎君, 方小婷, 刘明矾, 王凯凯, 杨强. 压力知觉对大学生抑郁的影响:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(4): 497-503.
[13] 丁子恩, 王笑涵, 刘勤学. 大学生自尊与网络过激行为的关系:社交焦虑和双自我意识的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 171-180.
[14] 刘雪萍, 陈子卓, 黄文, 彭华茂. 成功老化内涵及影响因素分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 249-256.
[15] 颜志强, 苏彦捷. 共情的性别差异:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(2): 129-136.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!