Mental models accurately predict emotion transitions

Significance People naturally understand that emotions predict actions: angry people aggress, tired people rest, and so forth. Emotions also predict future emotions: for example, tired people become frustrated and guilty people become ashamed. Here we examined whether people understand these regularities in emotion transitions. Comparing participants’ ratings of transition likelihood to others’ experienced transitions, we found that raters’ have accurate mental models of emotion transitions. These models could allow perceivers to predict others’ emotions up to two transitions into the future with above-chance accuracy. We also identified factors that inform—but do not fully determine—these mental models: egocentric bias, the conceptual properties of valence, social impact, and rationality, and the similarity and co-occurrence between different emotions. Successful social interactions depend on people’s ability to predict others’ future actions and emotions. People possess many mechanisms for perceiving others’ current emotional states, but how might they use this information to predict others’ future states? We hypothesized that people might capitalize on an overlooked aspect of affective experience: current emotions predict future emotions. By attending to regularities in emotion transitions, perceivers might develop accurate mental models of others’ emotional dynamics. People could then use these mental models of emotion transitions to predict others’ future emotions from currently observable emotions. To test this hypothesis, studies 1–3 used data from three extant experience-sampling datasets to establish the actual rates of emotional transitions. We then collected three parallel datasets in which participants rated the transition likelihoods between the same set of emotions. Participants’ ratings of emotion transitions predicted others’ experienced transitional likelihoods with high accuracy. Study 4 demonstrated that four conceptual dimensions of mental state representation—valence, social impact, rationality, and human mind—inform participants’ mental models. Study 5 used 2 million emotion reports on the Experience Project to replicate both of these findings: again people reported accurate models of emotion transitions, and these models were informed by the same four conceptual dimensions. Importantly, neither these conceptual dimensions nor holistic similarity could fully explain participants’ accuracy, suggesting that their mental models contain accurate information about emotion dynamics above and beyond what might be predicted by static emotion knowledge alone.

[1]  J. Russell A circumplex model of affect. , 1980 .

[2]  S. Tomkins,et al.  Affect Imagery Consciousness: The Positive Affects , 1963 .

[3]  Nico H. Frijda,et al.  Emotions and Action , 2004 .

[4]  W. Ickes Empathic Accuracy , 2005 .

[5]  W. Meck,et al.  The Socio-Temporal Brain: Connecting People in Time , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  W. Revelle,et al.  The dynamic relationships of affective synchrony to perceptions of situations , 2011 .

[7]  Dennis H. Holding,et al.  Theories of chess skill , 1992 .

[8]  N. Epley,et al.  Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Iain L. MacDonald,et al.  Hidden Markov Models and Animal Behaviour , 1995 .

[10]  S. Tomkins Illuminating and Stimulating. (Book Reviews: Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. vol. 1, The Positive Affects) , 1963 .

[11]  Juan Manuel Contreras,et al.  Neural evidence that three dimensions organize mental state representation: Rationality, social impact, and valence , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  R. Saxe,et al.  Theory of Mind: A Neural Prediction Problem , 2013, Neuron.

[13]  Pierre Philippot,et al.  Consequences of specific processing of emotional information: Impact of general versus specific autobiographical memory priming on emotion elicitation. , 2003, Emotion.

[14]  Jamil Zaki,et al.  Unpacking the informational bases of empathic accuracy. , 2009, Emotion.

[15]  Francis Tuerlinckx,et al.  A hierarchical latent stochastic differential equation model for affective dynamics. , 2011, Psychological methods.

[16]  B. Mesquita,et al.  Context in Emotion Perception , 2011 .

[17]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Social Brain Hypothesis , 1998, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[18]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis , 2007, Science.

[19]  M. Taquet,et al.  Emotions in Everyday Life , 2015, PloS one.

[20]  S. Gutstein,et al.  Quality of Life for People with Autism: Raising the Standard for Evaluating Successful Outcomes. , 2007, Child and adolescent mental health.

[21]  Christopher Potts,et al.  Sentiment expression conditioned by affective transitions and social forces , 2014, KDD.

[22]  Jason P. Mitchell,et al.  of Experimental Psychology : General Anchoring and Adjustment During Social Inferences , 2012 .

[23]  Agneta H. Fischer,et al.  Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium , 2004 .

[24]  O. Ovaskainen,et al.  State-space models of individual animal movement. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[25]  D. Ames,et al.  Strategies for social inference: a similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  A. Young,et al.  Emotion Perception from Dynamic and Static Body Expressions in Point-Light and Full-Light Displays , 2004, Perception.

[27]  Jamil Zaki,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article It Takes Two The Interpersonal Nature of Empathic Accuracy , 2022 .

[28]  B. Casey,et al.  The neurodynamics of emotion: delineating typical and atypical emotional processes during adolescence. , 2016, Developmental science.

[29]  William A. Cunningham,et al.  Emotional States from Affective Dynamics , 2013 .

[30]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .