A psycho-ethological approach to social signal processing

Abstract

The emerging field of social signal processing can benefit from a theoretical framework to guide future research activities. The present article aims at drawing attention to two areas of research that devoted considerable efforts to the understanding of social behaviour: ethology and social psychology. With a long tradition in the study of animal signals, ethology and evolutionary biology have developed theoretical concepts to account for the functional significance of signalling. For example, the consideration of divergent selective pressures responsible for the evolution of signalling and social cognition emphasized the importance of two classes of indicators: informative cues and communicative signals. Social psychology, on the other hand, investigates emotional expression and interpersonal relationships, with a focus on the mechanisms underlying the production and interpretation of social signals and cues. Based on the theoretical considerations developed in these two fields, we propose a model that integrates the processing of perceivable individual features (social signals and cues) with contextual information, and we suggest that output of computer-based processing systems should be derived in terms of functional significance rather than in terms of absolute conceptual meaning.

Predicting Continuous Conflict Perceptionwith Bayesian Gaussian Processes

“…According to different theoretic orientations, social signals correspond to "acts or structures that influence the behavior or internal state of other individuals" [19], "communicative or informative signals which [...] provide information about social facts" [20], or "actions whose function is to bring about some reaction or to engage in some process" [21]. In other words, social signals are observable behaviors that not only convey information about social phenomena, but also influence others and their behaviors.…”

Sex and Leadership: Interpreting Competitive and Affiliative Facial Displays Based on Workplace Status

“…Embedded within these exchanges are implicit leadership theories of what there is a shared communicative structure between the sender and the receiver of the display with a ''folk understanding'' concerning how emotions are defined and interpreted; and lastly, the display signals behavioral intent (Scherer and Grandjean 2008). While there might be a great deal of specificity in the internal state, behavioral intent, and social significance signaled by multitude of muscles in the face (Mehu and Scherer 2012), the emotion terms we tend to use (e.g., angry, fearful, disgusted, sad, happy) ''function as shorthand descriptors and summaries of complex and highly variable phenomena'' (Scherer and Grandjean 2008, 799). Therefore, understanding how facial displays of supervisors and their subordinates are perceived is crucial to understanding their face-to-face interactions.…”

Advances in Research Using the C-SPAN Archives

“…Whether this is through general "impoliteness" (Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2005) or through specifically identified nonverbal behavior (Gong & Bucy, 2015;Gong & Bucy, 2016;Seiter & Harry Weger, 2005;Seiter, Weger Jr, Jensen, & Kinzer, 2010), inappropriate behavior has had a substantial and negative effect upon a candidate's electoral chances (Schrott & Lanoue, 2008). In other words, while talk by the candidates may be seen as cheap, it is nonverbal behavior-especially that at odds with the verbal utterances-that more honestly signals the capability, intent, and reliability of the candidates (Mehu & Scherer, 2012).…”

“…Taken together as a summary of emotion concepts, especially in the latter case of subjective feelings, it can be posited that there are natural families of emotion, and within each of these families more finely grained constructs (Scherer & Grandjean, 2008). With the CPM, semantic representations of emotion (e.g., anger, fear, disgust, happiness) are seen as the result of seven sequential, albeit reciprocal and interactive (Scherer, Mortillaro, & Mehu, 2013), appraisal checks by individuals (consciously or unconsciously) in terms of: relevance regarding novelty (1) concerning the suddenness and (2) the familiarity and predictability of the stimuli, (3) intrinsic pleasantness, and goal/need relevance; the implications of the stimuli for the individual in terms of who the causal agent is, and what their motivations are in terms of an outcome's probability, as well as how (4) discrepant it is from expectations, and how (5) conducive and urgent the implications are; (6) the person's coping potential regarding their control, power, and adjustments required; and finally, (7) the normative significance of the event based upon the individual's internal and external standards (Mehu & Scherer, 2012;. On the basis of these appraisal checks, and resultant physiological changes that occur, their presence may in turn be signaled through facial display behavior that may in turn be coded using FACS.…”

“…We draw from the work of the Dartmouth Group and their followers (Masters et al, 1986;Salter, 2007;Stewart, Salter, & Mehu, 2009;Sullivan & Masters, 1994;Sullivan & Masters, 1988), albeit with elaborations made possible by advances in human ethology through the CPM (Mehu & Scherer, 2012;Scherer & Meuleman, 2013). Specifically, we consider the six emotion clusters connected with the political behaviors of dominance (anger and disgust), submission (fear and sadness), and affiliation (happiness and contentment), which are then presented as choices to participants when identifying the behavior of the candidates.…”