Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions

Nicoladie D. Tam

doi:doi:10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

| Peer-Reviewed

Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions

Nicoladie D. Tam

Published in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (Volume 3, Issue 2)

Received: 31 March 2014 Accepted: 20 April 2014 Published: 30 April 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

In the previously proposed theoretical model of emotion, emotion serves as an internal feedback to assess the disparity between the internal prediction and the actual outcomes in the external world, so that congruency between the desirable wants and needs can be met by resolving the emotions. The Emotional-Gain Model predicts that the happy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude of the desirable gain signals, while unhappy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude loss signals. Using the classical Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm to elicit self-generated emotions in response to a monetary offer, we want to determine whether the emotional responses are altered in relation to the decision to accept or reject the offer. If so, then does it change the emotional baseline level or the emotional sensitivity? The results showed that the proportionality relationship between emotional intensity and offer-ratios remains the same with respect to the acceptance or rejection decision. The only difference between the decisions is that the baseline level of happiness is shifted by 40% higher for the decisions to accept the offer, compared to the decisions that rejected the offer. The emotional baseline level is changed without changing the emotional sensitivity. This is quantified by the shift in the y-intercept of the emotional stimulus-response function. The happy emotional intensity is shifted upward (toward positive emotion) for those trials that accepted the offer, compared to those who rejected the offer. The slope of the stimulus-response function does not change with respect to the decision, indicating the constancy of the emotional sensitivity. These results validated the hypothesis that happy emotion is inter-related to the decision-making process, such that the decision to accept an offer is related to a shift towards a happier emotion, while the decision to reject an offer is associated with a shift towards an unhappier emotion. This provided the quantitative assessment of how emotion is biased in relation to the decision. The decision to accept an offer is related to a shift to the emotional baseline level rather than a change in the emotional sensitivity — without altering the proportionality relationship between happiness intensity and monetary offer-ratios in UG.

Published in	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (Volume 3, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
Page(s)	68-74
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Emotional Model, Happy, Fairness, Gain, Ultimatum Game, Decision Making, Error Minimization

References

[1]	D. Tam, "EMOTION-I model: A biologically-based theoretical framework for deriving emotional context of sensation in autonomous control systems," Open Cybern Sys J, vol. 1, pp. 28-46, 2007.
[2]	D. Tam, "EMOTION-II model: A theoretical framework for happy emotion as a self-assessment measure indicating the degree-of-fit (congruency) between the expectancy in subjective and objective realities in autonomous control systems," Open Cybern Sys J, vol. 1, pp. 47-60, 2007.
[3]	D. Tam, "A theoretical model of emotion processing for optimizing the cost function of discrepancy errors between wants and gets," BMC Neuroscience, vol. 10, p. P11, Jul 13 2009.
[4]	Psychology and Behavioral Sciences 2014; 3(2): 60-67.
[5]	J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, and A. Rubinstein, Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953.
[6]	F. Schneider, R. C. Gur, R. E. Gur, and L. R. Muenz, "Standardized mood induction with happy and sad facial expressions," Psychiatry Res, vol. 51, pp. 19-31, Jan 1994.
[7]	I. Laeger, C. Dobel, U. Dannlowski, H. Kugel, D. Grotegerd, J. Kissler, et al., "Amygdala responsiveness to emotional words is modulated by subclinical anxiety and depression," Behav Brain Res, vol. 233, pp. 508-16, Aug 1 2012.
[8]	M. J. van Tol, L. R. Demenescu, N. J. van der Wee, R. Kortekaas, M. A. N. Marjan, J. A. Boer, et al., "Functional magnetic resonance imaging correlates of emotional word encoding and recognition in depression and anxiety disorders," Biol Psychiatry, vol. 71, pp. 593-602, Apr 1 2012.
[9]	D. N. Tam, "Computation in emotional processing: quantitative confirmation of proportionality hypothesis for angry unhappy emotional intensity to perceived loss," Cogn Comput, vol. 3, pp. 394-415, 2011/06/01 2011.
[10]	A. Bechara, "The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage," Brain Cogn, vol. 55, pp. 30-40, Jun 2004.
[11]	C. Civai, C. Corradi-Dell'Acqua, M. Gamer, and R. I. Rumiati, "Are irrational reactions to unfairness truly emotionally-driven? Dissociated behavioural and emotional responses in the Ultimatum Game task," Cognition, vol. 114, pp. 89-95, Jan 2010.
[12]	J. D. Greene, L. E. Nystrom, A. D. Engell, J. M. Darley, and J. D. Cohen, "The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment," Neuron, vol. 44, pp. 389-400, Oct 14 2004.
[13]	K. M. Harle and A. G. Sanfey, "Incidental sadness biases social economic decisions in the Ultimatum Game," Emotion, vol. 7, pp. 876-881, Nov 2007.
[14]	S. M. McClure, D. I. Laibson, G. Loewenstein, and J. D. Cohen, "Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards," Science, vol. 306, pp. 503-7, Oct 15 2004.
[15]	E. K. Miller and J. D. Cohen, "An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function," Annu Rev Neurosci, vol. 24, pp. 167-202, 2001.
[16]	G. J. Quirk and J. S. Beer, "Prefrontal involvement in the regulation of emotion: convergence of rat and human studies," Curr Opin Neurobiol, vol. 16, pp. 723-7, Dec 2006.
[17]	E. T. Rolls, "Brain mechanisms of emotion and decision-making," Int Congress Series, vol. 1291, pp. 3-13, 2006.
[18]	A. G. Sanfey, G. Loewenstein, S. M. McClure, and J. D. Cohen, "Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making," Trends Cogn Sci, vol. 10, pp. 108-16, Mar 2006.
[19]	A. G. Sanfey, J. K. Rilling, J. A. Aronson, L. E. Nystrom, and J. D. Cohen, "The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game," Science, vol. 300, pp. 1755-1758, Jun 13 2003.
[20]	J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth, The handbook of experimental economics: PRINCETON University Press, 1995.
[21]	D. A. Braun, P. A. Ortega, and D. M. Wolpert, "Nash equilibria in multi-agent motor interactions," PLoS Comput Biol, vol. 5, p. e1000468, Aug 2009.
[22]	K. Sigmund, C. Hauert, and M. A. Nowak, "Reward and punishment," Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 98, pp. 10757-10762, Sep 11 2001.
[23]	J. K. Rilling, A. G. Sanfey, J. A. Aronson, L. E. Nystrom, and J. D. Cohen, "The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal interactions," Neuroimage, vol. 22, pp. 1694-703, Aug 2004.
[24]	P. Smith and A. Silberberg, "Rational maximizing by humans (Homo sapiens) in an ultimatum game," Anim Cogn, vol. 13, pp. 671-7, Jul 2010.
[25]	T. Yamagishi, Y. Horita, H. Takagishi, M. Shinada, S. Tanida, and K. S. Cook, "The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment," Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 106, pp. 11520-11523, Jul 14 2009.
[26]	S. S. Komorita, "Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale," J Soc Psychol, vol. 61, pp. 327-34, Dec 1963.
[27]	B. Güroğlu, W. van den Bos, and E. A. Crone, "Fairness considerations: increasing understanding of intentionality during adolescence," J Exp Child Psychol, vol. 104, pp. 398-409, Dec 2009.
[28]	B. Güroğlu, W. van den Bos, S. A. Rombouts, and E. A. Crone, "Unfair? It depends: neural correlates of fairness in social context," Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, vol. 5, pp. 414-423, Dec 2010.
[29]	M. Koenigs and D. Tranel, "Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the Ultimatum Game," J Neurosci, vol. 27, pp. 951-6, Jan 24 2007.
[30]	M. A. Nowak, K. M. Page, and K. Sigmund, "Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game," Science, vol. 289, pp. 1773-1775, Sep 8 2000.
[31]	M. M. Pillutla and J. K. Murnighan, "Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers," Org Behav Human Decis Proc, vol. 68, pp. 208-224, 12// 1996.
[32]	G. Tabibnia, A. B. Satpute, and M. D. Lieberman, "The sunny side of fairness: preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry)," Psychol Sci, vol. 19, pp. 339-347, Apr 2008.
[33]	M. van 't Wout, R. S. Kahn, A. G. Sanfey, and A. Aleman, "Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex affects strategic decision-making," Neuroreport, vol. 16, pp. 1849-52, Nov 7 2005.
[34]	P. J. Zak, R. Kurzban, S. Ahmadi, R. S. Swerdloff, J. Park, L. Efremidze, et al., "Testosterone administration decreases generosity in the ultimatum game," PLoS One, vol. 4, p. e8330, 2009.
[35]	P. J. Zak, A. A. Stanton, and S. Ahmadi, "Oxytocin increases generosity in humans," PLoS One, vol. 2, p. e1128, 2007.
[36]	M. L. Halko, Y. Hlushchuk, R. Hari, and M. Schurmann, "Competing with peers: mentalizing-related brain activity reflects what is at stake," Neuroimage, vol. 46, pp. 542-8, Jun 2009.
[37]	D. Tam, "Variables governing emotion and decision-making: human objectivity underlying its subjective perception," BMC Neuroscience, vol. 11, p. P96, Jul 20 2010.
[38]	D. N. Tam, "Quantification of fairness bias by a Fairness-Equity Model," BMC Neuroscience, vol. 12, p. P327, 2011.
[39]	E. Xiao and D. Houser, "Emotion expression in human punishment behavior," Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 102, pp. 7398-401, May 17 2005.
[40]	M. M. Pillutla and J. K. Murnighan, "Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 68, pp. 208-224, 12// 1996.
[41]	E. C. Seip, W. W. van Dijk, and M. Rotteveel, "On hotheads and Dirty Harries: the primacy of anger in altruistic punishment," Ann N Y Acad Sci, vol. 1167, pp. 190-196, Jun 2009.
[42]	I. Dar-Nimrod, C. D. Rawn, D. R. Lehman, and B. Schwartz, "The maximization paradox: The costs of seeking alternatives," Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 46, pp. 631-635, 4// 2009.
[43]	M. van’t Wout , R. S. Kahn, A. G. Sanfey, and A. Aleman, "Affective state and decision-making in the Ultimatum Game," Exp Brain Res, vol. 169, pp. 564-8, Mar 2006.
[44]	C. K. Morewedge, "Negativity bias in attribution of external agency," J Exp Psychol Gen, vol. 138, pp. 535-45, Nov 2009.
[45]	E. A. Murray and A. Izquierdo, "Orbitofrontal cortex and amygdala contributions to affect and action in primates," Ann N Y Acad Sci, vol. 1121, pp. 273-96, Dec 2007.
[46]	T. C. Burnham, "High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers," Proc Biol Sci, vol. 274, pp. 2327-30, Sep 22 2007.
[47]	C. Eisenegger, M. Naef, R. Snozzi, M. Heinrichs, and E. Fehr, "Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour," Nature, vol. 463, pp. 356-9, Jan 21 2010.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Nicoladie D. Tam. (2014). Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3(2), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Nicoladie D. Tam. Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2014, 3(2), 68-74. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Nicoladie D. Tam. Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions. Psychol Behav Sci. 2014;3(2):68-74. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16,
  author = {Nicoladie D. Tam},
  title = {Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions},
  journal = {Psychology and Behavioral Sciences},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {68-74},
  doi = {10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.pbs.20140302.16},
  abstract = {In the previously proposed theoretical model of emotion, emotion serves as an internal feedback to assess the disparity between the internal prediction and the actual outcomes in the external world, so that congruency between the desirable wants and needs can be met by resolving the emotions. The Emotional-Gain Model predicts that the happy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude of the desirable gain signals, while unhappy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude loss signals. Using the classical Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm to elicit self-generated emotions in response to a monetary offer, we want to determine whether the emotional responses are altered in relation to the decision to accept or reject the offer. If so, then does it change the emotional baseline level or the emotional sensitivity? The results showed that the proportionality relationship between emotional intensity and offer-ratios remains the same with respect to the acceptance or rejection decision. The only difference between the decisions is that the baseline level of happiness is shifted by 40% higher for the decisions to accept the offer, compared to the decisions that rejected the offer. The emotional baseline level is changed without changing the emotional sensitivity. This is quantified by the shift in the y-intercept of the emotional stimulus-response function. The happy emotional intensity is shifted upward (toward positive emotion) for those trials that accepted the offer, compared to those who rejected the offer. The slope of the stimulus-response function does not change with respect to the decision, indicating the constancy of the emotional sensitivity. These results validated the hypothesis that happy emotion is inter-related to the decision-making process, such that the decision to accept an offer is related to a shift towards a happier emotion, while the decision to reject an offer is associated with a shift towards an unhappier emotion. This provided the quantitative assessment of how emotion is biased in relation to the decision. The decision to accept an offer is related to a shift to the emotional baseline level rather than a change in the emotional sensitivity — without altering the proportionality relationship between happiness intensity and monetary offer-ratios in UG.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions
AU  - Nicoladie D. Tam
Y1  - 2014/04/30
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
T2  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JF  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JO  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
SP  - 68
EP  - 74
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-7845
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
AB  - In the previously proposed theoretical model of emotion, emotion serves as an internal feedback to assess the disparity between the internal prediction and the actual outcomes in the external world, so that congruency between the desirable wants and needs can be met by resolving the emotions. The Emotional-Gain Model predicts that the happy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude of the desirable gain signals, while unhappy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude loss signals. Using the classical Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm to elicit self-generated emotions in response to a monetary offer, we want to determine whether the emotional responses are altered in relation to the decision to accept or reject the offer. If so, then does it change the emotional baseline level or the emotional sensitivity? The results showed that the proportionality relationship between emotional intensity and offer-ratios remains the same with respect to the acceptance or rejection decision. The only difference between the decisions is that the baseline level of happiness is shifted by 40% higher for the decisions to accept the offer, compared to the decisions that rejected the offer. The emotional baseline level is changed without changing the emotional sensitivity. This is quantified by the shift in the y-intercept of the emotional stimulus-response function. The happy emotional intensity is shifted upward (toward positive emotion) for those trials that accepted the offer, compared to those who rejected the offer. The slope of the stimulus-response function does not change with respect to the decision, indicating the constancy of the emotional sensitivity. These results validated the hypothesis that happy emotion is inter-related to the decision-making process, such that the decision to accept an offer is related to a shift towards a happier emotion, while the decision to reject an offer is associated with a shift towards an unhappier emotion. This provided the quantitative assessment of how emotion is biased in relation to the decision. The decision to accept an offer is related to a shift to the emotional baseline level rather than a change in the emotional sensitivity — without altering the proportionality relationship between happiness intensity and monetary offer-ratios in UG.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Nicoladie D. Tam

Department of Biological Sciences, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76206, USA

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Nicoladie D. Tam. (2014). Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 3(2), 68-74. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Nicoladie D. Tam. Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions. Psychol. Behav. Sci. 2014, 3(2), 68-74. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Nicoladie D. Tam. Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions. Psychol Behav Sci. 2014;3(2):68-74. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16,
  author = {Nicoladie D. Tam},
  title = {Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions},
  journal = {Psychology and Behavioral Sciences},
  volume = {3},
  number = {2},
  pages = {68-74},
  doi = {10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.pbs.20140302.16},
  abstract = {In the previously proposed theoretical model of emotion, emotion serves as an internal feedback to assess the disparity between the internal prediction and the actual outcomes in the external world, so that congruency between the desirable wants and needs can be met by resolving the emotions. The Emotional-Gain Model predicts that the happy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude of the desirable gain signals, while unhappy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude loss signals. Using the classical Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm to elicit self-generated emotions in response to a monetary offer, we want to determine whether the emotional responses are altered in relation to the decision to accept or reject the offer. If so, then does it change the emotional baseline level or the emotional sensitivity? The results showed that the proportionality relationship between emotional intensity and offer-ratios remains the same with respect to the acceptance or rejection decision. The only difference between the decisions is that the baseline level of happiness is shifted by 40% higher for the decisions to accept the offer, compared to the decisions that rejected the offer. The emotional baseline level is changed without changing the emotional sensitivity. This is quantified by the shift in the y-intercept of the emotional stimulus-response function. The happy emotional intensity is shifted upward (toward positive emotion) for those trials that accepted the offer, compared to those who rejected the offer. The slope of the stimulus-response function does not change with respect to the decision, indicating the constancy of the emotional sensitivity. These results validated the hypothesis that happy emotion is inter-related to the decision-making process, such that the decision to accept an offer is related to a shift towards a happier emotion, while the decision to reject an offer is associated with a shift towards an unhappier emotion. This provided the quantitative assessment of how emotion is biased in relation to the decision. The decision to accept an offer is related to a shift to the emotional baseline level rather than a change in the emotional sensitivity — without altering the proportionality relationship between happiness intensity and monetary offer-ratios in UG.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Quantification of Happy Emotion: Dependence on Decisions
AU  - Nicoladie D. Tam
Y1  - 2014/04/30
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
DO  - 10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
T2  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JF  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
JO  - Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
SP  - 68
EP  - 74
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-7845
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20140302.16
AB  - In the previously proposed theoretical model of emotion, emotion serves as an internal feedback to assess the disparity between the internal prediction and the actual outcomes in the external world, so that congruency between the desirable wants and needs can be met by resolving the emotions. The Emotional-Gain Model predicts that the happy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude of the desirable gain signals, while unhappy emotional intensity is proportional to the magnitude loss signals. Using the classical Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm to elicit self-generated emotions in response to a monetary offer, we want to determine whether the emotional responses are altered in relation to the decision to accept or reject the offer. If so, then does it change the emotional baseline level or the emotional sensitivity? The results showed that the proportionality relationship between emotional intensity and offer-ratios remains the same with respect to the acceptance or rejection decision. The only difference between the decisions is that the baseline level of happiness is shifted by 40% higher for the decisions to accept the offer, compared to the decisions that rejected the offer. The emotional baseline level is changed without changing the emotional sensitivity. This is quantified by the shift in the y-intercept of the emotional stimulus-response function. The happy emotional intensity is shifted upward (toward positive emotion) for those trials that accepted the offer, compared to those who rejected the offer. The slope of the stimulus-response function does not change with respect to the decision, indicating the constancy of the emotional sensitivity. These results validated the hypothesis that happy emotion is inter-related to the decision-making process, such that the decision to accept an offer is related to a shift towards a happier emotion, while the decision to reject an offer is associated with a shift towards an unhappier emotion. This provided the quantitative assessment of how emotion is biased in relation to the decision. The decision to accept an offer is related to a shift to the emotional baseline level rather than a change in the emotional sensitivity — without altering the proportionality relationship between happiness intensity and monetary offer-ratios in UG.
VL  - 3
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download