IN DAILY LIFE

Ilan Shalif

RESULTS II

(=====Back to result I.To the discussion ---->

The subjects' dimensional scores were computed according to the procedure that appears in the chapter on methods, which can be summarized as follows: For each subject, the row of his 48 scores of the unmanipulated 48 facial expressions was multiplied by the matrix of the dimensional coordinates of the ten dimensional S.S.A.-I analysis of those 48 items. (In that matrix there are 48 rows and 10 columns.) The result of this multiplication - for each subject - is a row of 10 scores - one score for each dimension.

Results show that the significance (two-tail) of 30 of the 48 correlations with the first dimension is p<.002 (.002

These results and the two dimensional projection maps of the items (for each dimension against each of the others) reveal a relatively homogeneous dispersion of the items in the ten dimensional S.S.A.-I analysis. The combination of the two kinds of finding, indicates that the main content of all the 48 items and all the ten dimensions are of the same emotional domain.

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

As a whole, 57 of the 330 correlations are of p<.02 (less than 7 are expected by chance alone); 31 of these are of p<.002 (when by chance only 0.7 - less then one such high correlation is expected).

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.

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

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

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.

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.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.

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 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 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*********************

* 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).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 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**For each difference one line for the size and one for the significance.

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.

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.

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.)

In the Q-Sort only the fear subgroup is correlated significantly with it (-0.19, p<.002).

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 basic emotion shame that was included for control purposes has only two items. However, it was found to be of a unique content of its own. It was previously found to be as such only in a small number of studies - due to its small part in the systematic variance. It seems that its clear appearance in our study is due to the strength of the study procedure and the new methodology on which it is based.

The eighth dimension - seems to have the content of contempt

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).

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).

From the above correlations it seems that the content of this dimension is of
disgust versus satisfaction.

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:

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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)

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).

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 content of this dimension is mainly of patience (of the abstainers) versus
the cluster of emotions of those preoccupied with love relationships.

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

On the relations between the ten dimensions of the words and those of the facial expressions The following Table 12 contains the matrix of correlations between the ten dimensions of the words and the ten dimensions of the 48 unmanipulated facial expressions. The mathematical directions of the results were adjusted in order to clarify the presentation.

***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.

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

**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.**

_{
}

The other Home Pages: http://www.netvision.net.il/php/gshalif

http://www.geocities.com/~drilanshalif

The E-Mail: gshalif@netvision.net.il

To the TOP

For suggestions and complains click on: gshalif@netvision.net.il

To the Discussion ---->