Affect, Motivation, & Virtual Reality

Transcription

1 Affect, Motivation, & Virtual Reality Jim Blascovich, Ph.D. Research Center for Virtual Environments and Behavior University of California, Santa Barbara Workshop on Transactional Emotions ICT-USC October 26, 2007

2 Overview Biopsychosocial Model of Challenge and Threat Social Influence within Immersive Virtual Environments Integrative Research

3 Biopsychosocial Model Identifies distinctive physiological activity marking the interplay among psychological processes that result in superordinate affective-cognitivemotivational states; i.e., challenge and threat, situated within motivated performance situations.

4 Intellectual Roots Lazarus & Folkman s (1984) appraisal theory. Dienstbier s (1989) theory of physiological toughness

5 Key Concepts Challenge Evaluated ( appraised ) resources outweigh evaluated demands Threat Evaluated ( appraised ) demands outweigh resources

6 Key Concepts Challenge Approach Threat Approach/Avoidance Disengagement Avoidance

7 Examples of Evaluative Factors Demands Resources Danger/Safety Required Effort Uncertainty Skills, Knowledge Dispositions Others Presence

8 Dienstbier s (1989) Constructs Physiological Toughness Physiological Weakness

9 Dienstbier s Theory of Physiological Toughness (1989) Neuro-endocrine control systems of cardiovascular activity Toughness: SAM axis activation Weakness: SAM + HPA axes activation

10 Cardiovascular Markers VC = PEP*(-1) CO Challenge Threat TPR

11 RESOURCE/DEMAND EVALUATION SAM ACTIVATION HPA ACTIVATION Challenge PERFORMANCE DELIBERATE Semantic Affective AUTOMATIC Low High SUCCESS/ FAILURE Threat MOTIVATED PERFORMANCE SITUATION

12 Performance Generally better under challenge than threat motivation. Better under threat than challenge for vigilance.

13 Validational Studies Correlational (e.g., Tomaka et al., 1993; 1997) Experimental (e.g.,hunter 2000; Weisbuch et al., 2005) Predictive (e.g.,blascovich et al. 2004) Convergent Intrapersonal Interpersonal

14 Intrapersonal Processes Dispositions (e.g., Seery et al., 2005) Attitudes (e.g., Blascovich et al., 1993) Automatic vs. Conscious Processes (e.g., Weisbuch et al., 2005) Uncertainty (e.g., Mendes et al., 2007)

15 Interpersonal Processes Social Facilitation (Blascovich et al., 1999) Social Comparison (Mendes et al., 2002) Social Support (Allen et al., 1990, 2000) Emotional Disclosure (Mendes et al., 2003) Social Emotions (Tomaka et al. 2002) Stigma (e.g., Blascovich et al., 2001; Mendes et al., 2002)

16 Social Influence within Virtual Environments (Blascovich, 2002) Agency Communicative Realism Self-Relevancy Response System Level

17 Threshold Surface of Social Influence as a Function of Response System Level (High Self Relevance) Realism 0 Agent Human Agency Avatar Automatic Deliberate Response System

18 Stigma and Threat Many theorists assume that perceivers are threatened by bearers of social stigmas Little evidence to support this basic theoretical assumption problems with past attempts at physiological measures problems with other types of measures especially self-report

19 General Paradigm Partner a participant with a confederate who is either stigmatized or not stigmatized Immerse them in dyadic motivated performance situations Record physiological (cardiovascular) responses marking challenge and threat

20 Speech

21 Cooperative Wordfinding Task

22 Types of Stigma Manipulations Disfigurements Race Ethnicity SES Perceivers vs. Targets

23 Perceptions and Reality of Stigmatization Two naïve participants (Dyads = 128) Perceiver Target Digital Photography

24 Reality Perception Not Stigmatized Not Stigmatized Did Nothing to photograph Stigmatized Digitally Erased Birthmark (Treatment) Stigmatized Digitally Applied Birthmark (Perception) Did Nothing to photograph (Perception & Treatment)

25 No Birthmark Birthmark

26 Perceiver Perception C N Bearer Perception N C

27 Cardiovascular Reactivity During the First Minute of the Speech Task by Actual Stigmatization -- Perceivers Responses VC CO TPR T Participant s partner is: Not Stigmatized Stigmatized Actual Stigma, p <.05 Perception of Stigma, ns Interaction, ns -40 C

28 Cardiovascular Reactivity During the First Minute of the Speech Task by Perception of Stigmatization -- Targets Responses VC CO TPR T Participants believe they are: Not Stigmatized Stigmatized -100 Perception of Stigmatization, p <.0001 Reality of Stigmatization, ns Interaction, ns C Mendes, Blascovich, Seery, & Major, in prep

29

30 What would happen if we experimentally crossed physical stigma with virtual stigma?

31 Stigma

32 Physical C I Virtual - I C

33

34 Physical C I Virtual - I C

35 Predictions? A. Main effect for physical stigma B. Main effect for virtual stigma C. Additive Main Effects? D. Interaction E. Uncertain

36 Cardiovascular Markers of Challenge/Threat Ventricular Contractility Physical Birthmark No Physical Birthmark Virtual Birthmark No Virtual Birthmark Cardiac Output Physical Birthmark No Physical Birthmark Virtual Birthmark No Virtual Birthmark Total Peripheral Resistance Physical Birthmark No Physical Birthmark Virtual Birthmark Physical Birthmark Data from Task Min. 1

37 Moderators Time Gaze of participant % of time looking at the virtual face of the confederates avatar.

38 Eye Gaze and Cardiovascular Markers of Challenge/Threat Physical Birthmark No Physical Birthmark Virtual Birthmark No Virtual Birthmark TPR: r =.189 TPR: r =.679 CO: r = CO: r = (stay threatened) (become threatened) TPR: r = TPR: r = CO: r =.741 CO: r =.058 (become challenged) (stay challenged)

39 Crossing Danger: Physically and Virtually

40 Conclusions?