一种新的衡量情绪识别能力的测验：松本和艾克曼的日本人与高加索人的短暂表情识别测验（JACBART） 毕业论文外文翻译

一种新的衡量情绪识别能力的测验：松本和艾克曼的日本人与高加索人的短暂表情识别测验（JACBART） 毕业 论文 政研论文下载论文大学下载论文大学下载关于长拳的论文浙大论文封面下载 外文 翻译 阿房宫赋翻译下载德汉翻译pdf阿房宫赋翻译下载阿房宫赋翻译下载翻译理论.doc A NEW TEST TO MEASURE EMOTION RECOGNITION ABILITY: MATSUMOTO AND EKMAN’S JAPANESE AND CAUCASIAN BRIEF AFFECT RECOGNITION TEST (JACBART) ABSTRACT: In this article, we report the development of a new test designed to measure individual differences in emotion recognition ability(ERA), five studies examining the reliability and validity of the scores produced using this test, and the first evidence for a correlation between ERA measured by a standardized test and personality. Utilizing Matsumoto and Ekman’s (1988) Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion (JACFEE) and Neutral Faces (JACNeuF), we call this measure the Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART). The JACBART improves on previous measures of ERA by (1) using expressions that have substantial validity and reliability data associated with them, (2) including posers of two visibly different races (3) balanced across seven universal emotions (4) with equal distribution of poser race and sex across emotions (5) in a format that eliminates afterimages associated with fast exposures. Scores derived using the JACBART are reliable, and three studies demonstrated a correlation between ERA and the personality constructs of Openness and Conscientiousness, while one study reports a correlation with Extraversion and Neuroticism. Research on judgments of emotion from facial expressions has a long and important history in psychology, and has contributed greatly to the literature concerning the universality of emotion, and to knowledge concerning differences between gender, ethnicity, culture, and psychiatric status. Studies examining the relationship between individual differences in judgments of emotion (hereon referred to as Emotion Recognition Ability—ERA) and personality also have a considerable history, but is checkered with inconsistent findings. On one hand, ERA has been correlated with emotional expression (e.g., Lanzetta & Kleck, 1970; Levy, 1964; Zuckerman, Hall, DeFrank, & Rosenthal, 1976; Zuckerman, Larrance, Hall, DeFrank, & Rosenthal, 1979), self-monitoring (Mill,1984; Mufson&Nowicki,1991;Riggio & Friedman, 1982); social desirability (Cunningham, 1977); depression, control, aggression, and gregariousness (Toner & Gates, 1985); and social style, mental ability , achievement , and psychological mindedness (LeRoux, 1987) . On the other hand, Cunningham (1977) failed to replicate a relationship between self-monitoring and ERA, and Zuckerman et al. (1979) found a relationship for women but not men. Buck, Savin, Miller, and Caul (1972) found a relationship between ERA and extraversion, as did Zuckerman et al. (1979). Cunningham (1977), however, did not replicate these findings, and instead found a relationship with neuroticism. Theoretically, it is not unreasonable to consider that ERA should be related to stable personality traits. Individuals who are better at judging emotions in others should have greater degrees of interpersonal consciousness or concern; they should be more in tune with their environment, and with others. As an important component of our nonverbal communication system, such skills would be necessary for successful adaptation and manipulation of the environment, ensuring the stability and integrity of the self. Because ERA is an important part of our daily lives, it is easy to consider how it should be related to various personality constructs, such as those specified in the five factor model. Extraversion, for example, is associated with stimulation seeking from others and the environment. As such, extraverts should be more willing to take in data concerning the emotions of others, being more interpersonally conscious of others in the environment. Individuals who score high on neuroticism, however, tend to be emotionally avoidant; because they are prone to experience negative emotions, they should have a tendency to avoid the recognition and awareness of others’emotions. The personality construct of openness is similar to extraversion in the sense that open individuals tend to be curious and interested in stimulation; they should be more attendant to the emotions of others. Conscientiousness is related to cooperation with and attending to others; conscientious individuals are more thorough, reliable, and efficient. They should be better at recognizing emotions because they are more attentive to details, and are better able to participate in such emotion judgment tasks. Why have previous attempts to establish a relationship between personality and ERA been awash with contradictory findings? One possible reason is the stimuli used in previous studies, which were different in each study and thus not equivalent across the studies nor, as Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) suggested, did they cover a representative spectrum of emotional expressions (LeRoux, 1987). Another possible reason is the fact that, with only one exception (LeRoux, 1987, but these data are not published), many previous studies used measures specifically gene- rated in each study rather than accepted, standardized tests. This distinction is important (O’Sullivan,1982), because there is no guarantee that accuracy judgments were made against a valid standard. If a standardized test were available, data could be generated using a valid standard, and the same test can be used across studies. At the very least, inconsistencies in the nature of the stimuli could be ruled out as a possible moderator of the contradictions. Previous Tests of ERA There has been a number of such tests developed in the past, each assessing some aspect of ERA (and its close relative, nonverbal decoding skills,)1 but each with its own limitations (see review by O’Sullivan, 1982). Some focus on nonverbal behaviors, such as the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS: Rosenthal, Hall, DiMatteo, Rogers, & Archer, 1979), the Social Skills Inventory (SSI: Riggio, 1986), the Social Interpretations Test (Archer & Akert, 1977), and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale (DANVA: Nowicki & Duke, 1994). But, these do not focus on the recognition of discrete emotional states. Other tests focus more closely on emotion, such as the Communication and Reception of Affect Test (CARAT: Buck, 1976), the Test of Emotion Styles (TES: Allen & Hamsher, 1974), the Understanding our Feelings test (Elmore,1985), the Feldstein Affect Judgment Test (Wolitzky,1973), the Affective Communication Test (Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980), and the Contextual and Affective Sensitivity test (CAST: Trimboli & Walker, 1993). But, these are also questionable because of the lack of validity of the expressions used to portray emotion, the ability to produce specific scores on discrete emotions, or the lack of balance within the test to portray encoder characteristics (e.g., sex, race)equally. The use of facial expressions of emotion that are universally recognized would address one concern.The data associated with expressions of anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise provide sufficient evidence of their external validity to portray accurately and reliably these discrete emotional states. In fact, some studies have used these expressions as measures (e.g., Matsumoto, 1989 , 1992) . But , while they address some concerns, one artifact of their use is the high agreement level in judgments, which precludes the measurement of individual differences. There are at least three ways to address the issue of high agreement levels: (1) reduce image size, (2) distort temporal and/or spatial resolution, or (3) increase presentation speed. Ekman, Brattesani, O’Sullivan, and Friesen (1979) explored the first method, using two cameras to videotape nurses during“honest”and “dishonest”interviews. One camera provided the“small face”condition in which the image size was one-fifth the area of a typical human face. The other camera provided the“large face”condition in which the image size was twice the area. Image size did not affect judgments about the nurses’affective states. Ekman et al. (1979) concluded“facial actions provide consistent information despite considerable size reduction”(p. 61). Wallbott (1992) examined the second method, using a series of videotaped sequences developed by Scherer (1986) that depict 14 emotional states, and distorted either spatial resolution (pixel resolution—the number of points or squares constituting a video frame) or temporal resolution (refreshment rate—the number of frames transmitted per second).Although recognition rates decreased as distortion increased, most recognition rates still remained above chance levels. The stimuli used, however, did not meet independent criteria for validity. The third method is to present the stimuli at such fast speeds that judgment accuracy is compromised. Ekman and Friesen’s (1974) Brief Affect Recognition Task (BART) was created in this manner. It involves very brief (under 1/5s) presentations of facial stimuli, based on Ekman and Friesen’s (1969) observation of micro-momentary expressions that occur almost outside of conscious awareness, and has been used to assess individual ERA (Ekman & Friesen, 1974; Mufson & Nowicki, 1991). One problem, however, is that facial physiognomy and poser sex are not balanced across emotions; another is the production of afterimages that affect judgments. Matsumoto and Ekman’s (1988) Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion(JACFEE) addresses the limitation of the expressions used in Ekman and Friesen’s (1974) BART, and improves on them in several ways. First, it includes equal numbers of posers of two visibly different ethnic groups , and of males and females within each group, for each of the seven universal emotions. Second, the faces were scored using Ekman and Friesen’s (1978) Facial Action Coding System (FACS; reliability .91) to verify that the same expressions were shown across posers within each emotion, and that these are associated with universal emotions (Ekman & Friesen,1975,1986). Third, observers in multiple countries and cultures agree in their emotion judgments of the JACFEE expressions (Biehl et al.,1997). There is, therefore, ample support for the validity and reliability of these expressions. The next issue is how to alter their presentation to produce reliable individual difference scores. The Development of the JACBART We used Matsumoto and Ekman’s(1988) JACFEE and Neutral Faces(JACNeuF) (consisting of neutral poses by the JACFEE posers) to develop a new test of ERA which we call the Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test(JACBART). Items were created by embedding a JACFEE expression in the middle of a 1s presentation of that poser’s JACNeuF expression on videotape. This format eliminated afterimages of the target JACFEE expression. Items were placed in a random order, with the condition that the same emotion was not presented consecutively. There was a 3s interstimulus interval, with an orienting tone accompanied by a presenation number shown 1s prior to the item. This format was repeated for all 56 items. Overview of the Studies Reported Here We report five studies that explore the reliability and validity of the JACBART. Within the realm of reliability, two issues need to be considered—internal and temporal reliability. With 56 items measuring different aspects of expressions—emotion, poser race, and poser sex—and multiple items representing each aspect, items measuring each characteristic of the expressions must be internally consistent with each other, and consistent across time. There are multiple concerns about validity. Face validity is assessed by the overall appearance of the test, and the use of the JACFEE and JACNeuF amply addresses this concern. Content validity concerns the lexical, logical, and methodological definitions of the construct (O’Sullivan, 1982), and is addressed by the structure of the JACBART, its rating scales and instructions. Two forms of cons- truct validity—convergent and divergent—are demonstrated empirically. Convergent validity refers to the ability of the JACBART to correlate with measures of the same or similar construct, or by intercorrelations among the different JACBART scale scores. Divergent validity requires that the test demonstrate that it is not perfectly correlated with an already existing test, and that it assesses an aspect of the construct that already existing tests do not assess. Predictive validity refers to the ability of a test to accurately predict other constructs, and there are two types. Concurrent validity refers to the ability of the JACBART to predict scores on a different construct when the scores are gathered at the same time. Future predictive validity refers to its ability to predict scores on a different construct measured at a future time. A different version of predictive validity is incremental validity, which refers to its ability to predict a different construct above and beyond what is already predicted by other similar tests. In the studies reported below, predictive validity was assessed by examining correlations between the JACBART and widely used personality measures. A final consideration is the need to demonstrate that the ERA scores generated by the JACBART are specific to the nature of emotion judgment, and not to general abilities related to taking such tests, including visual acuity, motivation, and the like. General Discussion All studies provided strong evidence for the internal reliability of the JACBART, as well as its convergent validity through its intercorrelations.Study 3 provided strong evidence for the temporal reliability of the scores, while Studies 1, 2, and 5 provided strong evidence for its concurrent validity with Openness, and moderate evidence for its concurrent validity with Conscientiousness. Study 4 also provided preliminary support for its concurrent validity with extraversion and neuroticism, but specific to one scale. Study 5 demonstrated that the validity coefficients between JACBART scores and the personality measures were not confounded by individual differences in visual acuity. These are the first findings in support of a valid and reliable measure of ERA. These data, combined with the external validity associated with the JACFEE expressions used in the JACBART from previous judgment studies and FACS coding, and with the balanced poser race and sex design of the JACFEE, allows the JACBA- RT to improve on limitations of other existing tests . We recommend the use of JACBART Version 3 with multiscalar ratings, as these produce the best internal re- liability statistics. But, these ratings are cumbersome, and should they be unwieldy, the forced-choice judgment task is much more user-friendly. And, there is no sacrifice in terms of reliability or validity associated with its use. To our knowledge, the findings reported are also the first published evidence of a correlation between a psychometrically sound measure of ERA and standard personality tests across multiple studies. That ERA was significantly correlated with these traits in three studies involving two different measures suggests clearly that the ability to recognize emotions in others is a reliable correlate of these personality dimensions. As mentioned earlier, individuals who score high on Openness are interested and curious, and are receptive to external stimuli. Apparently, these stimuli include characteristics related to other people’s expressions of feelings and emotions. Likewise, individuals who score high on Conscientiousness are reliable, efficient, and attentive to detail. The findings from these studies suggest that one of the details they attend to is facial expressions of emotion To be sure, there was some range in the size of the correlations across studies. We interpret the variance in the size of the correlations to be associated with sampling error. For instance, the correlations between total ERA and Openness in Studies 2 and 5 were .38 and .30, respectively (BFI only). The same correlation in Study 1 was .21. Studies 2 and 5 were associated with sample sizes of 89 and 44, while the sample size in Study 1 was 363. Clearly, the larger sample sizes introduce greater error into the data set, which reduces the absolute size of the correlations computed. This same trend was observed with the Conscientiousness correlations, and with correlations using other ERA scores. The pattern of correlations between ERA and Openness and Conscientiousness provide some conflicting views of the emotion-specificity of the correlations. On one hand, in Study 1, the correlations with Openness were significant for all emotions except happiness , suggesting non-specificity . Also, in Study 2, these correlations w- ere significant for disgust, fear, sadness, and surprise, and was marginally significant for contempt, again suggesting some degree of non-specificity. In Study 5, however, this correlation was only significant with disgust. Future studies, therefore, will need to explore the possible emotion-specificity of these correlations more fully . These st- udies will not be without considerable theoretical import. Non-specificity, on one hand, would suggest the existence of a general ERA, much like an intelligence“g” score. Such a concept would have major implications for future models of emotion and personality. If such a construct existed, subsequent studies can further explore its possibilities, and the implications it has for development, other personality and psychological correlates, social interactions, and its biological substrates. Some research using the JACBART, for instance, has already documented its predictive ability to detect lies (Frank & Ekman, 1997). Specificity, on the other hand, would implicate a special role for specific emotions in either interpersonal relationships or personality construction. In either case, the potential ramifications are interesting and provocative. We had also suggested in the introduction that ERA was related to extraversion and neuroticism.The results from Studies 1, 2, and 5, however, indicated that there was no correlation between these constructs. That the correlation was obtained only in Study 4, which used the EPI, suggests that there may be something about these dimensions measured by the EPI and not measured by the BFI-54 or NeoPI-R that may be related to ERA. Or, the findings from Study 4 may be due to sampling error. Clearly, this finding needs to be replicated. If replicated, then conceptual work needs to occur to flush out some of the theoretical differences between the extraversion and neuroticism measured in the EPI as opposed to the BFI or NeoPI-R. The five studies reported here do not address all of the reliability and validity concerns of the JACBART. Future studies will need to examine the predictive validity of the JACBART with other measures of personality, and personality constructs other than those measured in the studies reported here. Such research will need to occur within a more refined theoretical framework of the relationship between ERA and personality, which was premature here. Also, future studies will need to address the relationship between JACBART and other currently existing measures of ERA and decoding ability. One issue, of course, concerns the degree to which JACBART provides predictive ability above and beyond other currently existing measures, regardless of the specificity of emotion recognition that is assessed. A final methodological issue concerns the addition of faces of people of va- rious ethnic and racial backgrounds, not just the two presented by the JACBART. Future researchers will also need to deal with concerns about the ecological validity of the JACBART. Given that the JACBART focuses on the judgments of facial expressions of emotion in a laboratory setting, the degree to which ERA scores derived from such an administration are variable in multiple contexts—with other channels of communication and other contextual cues available—is an empirical question that needs to be addressed. It may be that the JACBART captures much of the variance in full context communication; or, it may be that the JACBART captures only a portion of such variance. A related issue concerns the relationship between the JACBART scores and reallife behaviors, and the actual emotion recognition schemes and abilities that are used in everyday life. 中文翻译: 一种新的衡量情绪识别能力的测验:松本和艾克曼的日本人与高加索人的短暂表 情识别测验(JACBART) 摘要:在这篇文章中，我们报告了一种新的测验旨在衡量个人在情感识别能力上的不同，五项研究来检测这个测试所得出的分数的可靠性和有效性，并为由 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 化测验测得的情绪识别能力与个性的相关性提供了第一个证据。松本和艾克曼(1988)的日本和高加索人的情绪性面部表情(JACFEE)和中性面孔(JACNeuF)表达式，我们称呼这项测试为日本和高加索短暂表情的辨识测试(JACBART)。该测验改进了以往情感识别能力的措施:(1)使用的表达式有很好的有效性以及可靠性数据与它们相联系(2)包括两个明显不同的种族的难题(3)跨越了七种普遍情感的平衡(4)平等分配波塞尔种族和性别之间的情感(五)使用一种格式消除了与快速曝光有关的余像。使用JACBART获得的成绩具有可靠性，同时三个研究证明情感识别能力和个性结构的开放性和严谨性之间存在相互关系，而另一项研究报告表明与外向性和神经质正相关关系。 对从面部表情判断情感在心理学的研究有一个长期和重要的历史，并大大促进了情感问题在文学上的普遍性，以及涉及关于性别，种族，文化差异，及精神状态之间不同的知识等等。研究审视情感判断的个体差异之间的关系(关于此被称为情感识别能力的时代)和性格也有相当的历史，但被验证出不一样的结果。一方面，情感识别能力已证实与情绪表达存在相关(例如，Lanzetta&克莱克，1970年;利维，1964;朱克曼，霍尔，德弗兰克，与罗森塔尔，1976;朱克曼，Larrance，霍尔，德弗兰克，与塔尔 1979)，自我监测(密尔，1984;穆夫森与诺维茨基，1991;瑞吉欧和弗里德曼，1982)，社会可取性(坎宁安，1977年);抑郁症，控制，侵略，合群(托纳与盖茨，1985);和社会方式，心理能力，成就，思想和心理性(勒鲁，1987年)。另一方面，坎宁安(1977)未能成功的再次得出自我监测和情感识别能力之间的关系，同时朱克曼等人(1979年)发现了与女性而不是男性之间存在一种关系。巴克，萨万，米勒和Caul(1972)发现情感识别能力与外向性之间的关系，与朱克曼等人的研究结果一样(1979年)。但是，坎宁安(1977)并没有重复这些发现，而是发现了情感识别能力与神经质 之间的关系。 从理论上讲，考虑情感识别能力与个体稳定的人格特质之间应该存在关系是合理的。那些能够较好判断别人的情绪的个人应该有更深程度的人际交往意识或关注，他们更应该调整与他们的环境，以及与他人的关系。作为我们的非语言交际系统的重要组成部分，这些技能将是成功的适应和对环境的操作，以及确保稳定和完整的自我的需要。 因为情感识别能力是我们日常生活的一个重要组成部分，可以很容易的考虑它是怎样与各种人格结构有关，如在指定的五因素模型。例如，外向性与寻求他人和环境的刺激之间相联系。因此，外向应该更愿意参加有关他人的情感数据，在环境中比他人更有人际关系职能的自觉。那些神经质得分高的个人却往往在感情上趋向于回避，因为他们很容易体验到负面情绪，他们应该有一种避免承认和他人的情感意识的倾向。率真的个性构造跟开放性的个性相似，在某种意义上说，开放的人往往对外界的刺激感到好奇和兴趣，他们应该更加顾及到别人的情绪。责任心是与合作，以及照顾他人有关系的;有责任心的人更缜密，可靠，高效。他们应该更好的识别情感，因为他们更注重细节更好，能够更好地参与这样的情感判断任务。为什么以前曾试图建立的个性与情感识别能力之间的关系是充斥着相互对立的结果呢,一个可能的原因是以往的研究中使用的刺激物在每一个研究中都不同，因此同样在研究中不具有相同的意义，因为布鲁纳和Tagiuri(1954)建议，他们建立一个涵盖具有代表性的情感表达方式的框架(勒鲁，1987)。另一个可能的原因事实是，只有一个例外(勒鲁，1987年，但这些数据并没有公布)，前期研究中每个实验所采用的措施都是明确的具体产生的而不是公认的标准化的测试。这个区别是很重要的(奥沙利文，1982年)，因为目前对判断的精确性是否不利于一个有效的标准没有保证。 如果一个标准化测试是可用的，数据可以生成使用有效的标准，同样的测试可以在整个研究中。至少，具有不同性质的刺激物可以排除缓和矛盾的可能性。 情感识别能力的前期测试 在过去曾经开发过一些类似这种的试验，每个评估情感识别能力的一些方面(和它的近亲，非语言解码能力)，但每个都有其自身的局限性(看奥沙利文写的评论，1982年)。在非语言行为的一些热点,如剖面非语言的敏感性(脑桥:罗森 塔尔，霍尔,迪马特奥,罗杰斯和阿彻,1997年),社会技能量表(SSI:瑞吉欧，1986)，社会诠释测试(阿彻和Akert，1977)和非语言的准确性量表(DANVA诊断分析:诺维茨基和杜克大学，1994年)。但是，这些不注重情感状态离散的识别。其它的测试重点更加紧密的情绪，如情感测试的交流与反应(克拉:布克，1976年)，情感类别测试(TES:艾伦和哈姆舍，1974)，理解我们的感情测试(埃尔莫尔，1985年) ，影响判断的费尔德斯坦测验(Wolitzky，1973年)，情感通信测试(弗里德曼，王子，瑞吉欧，和迪马特奥，1980)，以及语境和情感灵敏度试验(众:Trimboli和沃克，1993)。但是，这也是因为用于描绘情感的表达，能够产生特定的分数离散情绪，或缺乏平衡，在测试编码器来描述特征(如性别，种族)的有效性缺乏同样问题。 情感的脸部情绪的使用是一个举世公认的可以解决一种担忧。愤怒，蔑视，厌恶，恐惧，快乐，悲哀和惊奇的表情相关的数据提供了准备的外部有效性，可靠地描绘这些离散情感状态的充分证据。 年)。 事实上，有一些研究已经使用了表达式措施(例如，松本，1989年，1992但是，尽管他们解决一些了问题，他们使用的一种价值是在判断上的高一致性的水平，这就排除了个体差异的测量。 至少有三种方法来解决高水平一致的问题:(1)减少图像大小，(2)扭曲的时间或空间分辨率，(3)提高演示速度。埃克曼，Brattesani，奥沙利文和弗里森(1979)探讨了第一种方法，用两台摄像机仔细的录制护士的“诚实”与“不诚实”的访谈。一台摄像机提供的“小面”的条件，其中影像的大小为一个典型人脸区域的五分之一。另外一个相机提供的“大面子”的条件，其中影像的大小为两倍的面积。图片大小不影响护士对情感状态的判断。埃克曼等人(1979年)推论的“面部信息提供一致的信息不管面部尺寸的缩减”(第61页)Wallbott(1992)研究了第二种方法，使用的录像带以谢勒开发系列的(1986)14种情感状态的描绘，同时扭曲空间分辨率(像素分辨率的点或组成一个视频帧平方数)或时间分辨率(重新大一新生率是每秒传输帧数)。虽然识别率随着失真的增加而下降，大部分的识别率仍然有水平以上的机会。然而，刺激的使用不符合独立标准的有效性。 第三种方法是目前在这样快的速度的刺激从而判断的准确性受到损害。艾克曼和弗里森的(1974)简要的辨识工作网(BART)创建于这种方式。它涉及到 很短(在1/5s)的面部刺激，以艾克曼和弗里森对几乎出现在意识觉醒之外的微表情的观察为基础，同时已用于评估个人的情感识别能力(埃克曼和弗里森，1974;穆夫森与诺维茨基，1991)。但是，其中一个问题是面部的相和波塞尔不能跨性别平衡情绪，另一个是产生的后像影响判断。 松本和埃克曼(1988)的日本和高加索人情绪性的面部表情(JACFEE)解决了艾克曼和弗里森(1974)的BART实验中使用的表达式的局限，同时从几个方面对他们有所提高。首先，它包括两个明显不同的种族群体的相等的人数，而每个组的男性和女性给了每七个普遍情绪。其次，脸上用埃克曼和弗里森取得的(1978)面部动作编码系统(面部动作编码;可靠性.91)作为标记，以验证在同一情感表达式会显示在每一个情绪点，而这些都与普遍情感相联系(艾克曼和弗里森1975年，1986年)。第三，在多个国家和文化的观察家都同意在JACFEE表达式上自己的情绪判断(比尔等人，1997)。还有就是，因此，足够对的有效性和可靠性对表达式的支持。接下来的问题是如何改变他们的描述来产生可靠的个体差异分数。 日本和高加索短暂表情的辨识测试的发展 我们使用松本和艾克曼的(1988)JACFEE和中性面孔(JACNeuF)(中性组成的JACFEE姿态构成)，以发展一个新的情感识别能力考验，我们称之为日本和高加索短暂表情的辨识测试(JACBART)。项目是由埋藏在录像带中那些中性面孔表情的1s描述中间的情绪性表情构成的。这种格式消除了作为目标的JACFEE表情的后像。项目以一个随机的顺序放置，以致相同的情绪不会连续性出现。这边有一个3S的间歇性刺激的时间间隔，显示一个项目之前的1s 以数字的表达形式伴随着定向的基调。这种格式重复于所有的56个项目。 研究报告的概况 我们报告了五项研究来探索JACBART的可靠性和有效性。在可靠性领域内，有两个问题需要考虑内部和时间可靠性。有56个项目来测量表情与情绪，波塞尔种族和的不同方面，同时许多项目代表了同一方面，项目测量每个表达式的特性，相互之间必须存在内部一致性以及时期的一致性。 有很多关于有效性的担忧。表面效度是对测试整体外观的有效评估，以及JACFEE和JACNeuF的使用充分解决了这一问题。内容效度涉及的词汇，逻辑和方法定义的构造(奥沙利文，1982年)，是由JACBART的结构以及其评分标 准和说明书解决的。两种形式的结构效度，收敛和发散被经验所证明。收敛效度是指相关的JACBART能力与在不同JACBART量尺分数相同或相似的结构，或由不同JACBART规模的分数的组间关联。不同的有效性要求试验表明它是一个与现有测试完全不相关的测验，它评估了不曾评估的已有的测验的结构的一个方面。 预测效度指的是一个测试能够准确地预测其他结构，并有两种类型。同时效度指的JACBART的预测能力建设在不同的分数时，成绩都是在同一时间聚集。未来的预测效度是指它能够在不同的构造预测在未来的时间来衡量成绩。一个不同版本的预测效度是指增值效度，是指它能来预测一个不同的结构大于其他类似测验已经进行过的预测。在下面的研究报告，预测效度进行了评估JACBART和广泛使用的人格措施之间的相关性研究。 最后要考虑的是，必须证明其JACBART产生的情感识别能力得分的特有的情感判断的性质，而不是采取这种相关的测试，包括视力，动机，以及类似一般能力。 一般讨论 所有的研究为该JACBART内部一致性提供了有力的证据，以及通过其组间关联证明了其收敛效度。研究三提供了分数的时间可靠性提供了有力的证据，而研究一，二，五为开放性的同时效度提供了有力的证据，同时为它的责任感的结构有效性提供了中度证据。研究四还提供了初步的研究支持其与外向性和神经质的同时效度，但具体到一个规模。研究五表明，JACBART分数和人格措施的效度系数在没有视力视敏度上没有个体差异的混淆。 这是首次发现的一种有效和可靠的情感识别能力的支持。这些数据与在以前的JACBART使用FACS的研究和判断编码JACFEE表达相关联的外部有效性结合起来，与种族和性别平衡的JACFEE 设计 领导形象设计圆作业设计ao工艺污水处理厂设计附属工程施工组织设计清扫机器人结构设计 ，使JACBART改善现有测试的其他限制。我们建议JACBART3版使用多层级评级，因为这些生产出最可靠的内部统计数据。但是，这些评级有些繁琐同时应该有些难处理，强制选择判断任务更加好使用。同时，与其使用相关的可靠性或有效性方面并没有缺失。 据我们所知，所报告的调查结果还首次公布了情感识别能力的心理测量的声音测量和跨多个研究的水平性格测试指尖的相关证据。这三项研究中涉及两个不同的措施显示出情感识别能力与这些特质之间存在明显的关系指出能够识别他 人情绪与这些个性维度具有可靠的相关性。如前所述，个人谁开放性的得分高充满兴趣和好奇，并接受外界刺激。显然，这些刺激包括有关的感受和情绪的其他人的表现特征。同样，个人谁责任感得分高则可靠严谨，高效，周到细致。从这些研究结果表明，细节之一是他们致力于情绪的面部表情。 可以肯定的是，有一些在各研究的相关性大小的范围。我们的理解中的要与相关的抽样误差方差的大小相关。例如，在研究2和5的情感识别能力和开放性之间相关性分别为.38和0.30(只限BFI)。在同样的研究1中，相关性为.21。研究2和5均与89和44个样本量，而在研究1中的样本大小为363。很明显，较大的样本量引入的数据集，从而降低了计算的相关性的绝对规模较大的误差。同样的趋势在责任感相关中也可以看到，同时可以使用在其他情感识别能力的分数上。 情感识别能力与开放性以及责任感之间的相关模式提供了一些与感情专一的相关关系不一致的观点。一方面，在研究一中，开放性与所有的情感有显著的关系除了幸福的情绪，这表明非特异性。此外，在研究二中，这些显着的相关性对厌恶，恐惧，悲伤和惊奇有重要的意义，并与蔑视有轻微的意义，再次在某种程度上暗示了非特异性。然而在研究五中，这种相关性只与厌恶感显著。因此，未来的研究将更充分的探索可能存在的感情之间相关的特异性。这些研究将不会没有相当的理论支撑。一方面，非特异性，建议对一般的情感识别能力的存在，就像一个智慧的“G”评分。这种观念会对今后的情感和人格模式产生重大影响。如果这样的结构存在，随后的研究可以进一步探讨其可能性，以及它的发展的影响，其他人格和心理相关，社会交往有其生物学基板。例如，一些研究使用JACBART已经记录其预测能力去检测谎言(弗兰克和埃克曼，1997)。另一方面，专用性将起到牵连或个性或人际关系建设的特定情感的特殊作用。在这两种情况下，潜在的影响是有趣的和挑衅性的。 我们还建议那个情感识别能力与外向性和神经质有关的介绍。但是，从研究一，二，五的结果表示，这些结构之间没有这些相关性。只有在研究四中使用了EPI而得到这些相关，它使用的 计划 项目进度计划表范例计划下载计划下载计划下载课程教学计划下载 免疫，暗示一些通过EPI的测量规模以及没有通过BFI-54 或者NeoPI-R测量的东西可能与情感识别能力存在关系。或者，研究的结果4可能是由于抽样误差。显然，这一结果需要被证明。如果被证明，那么概念性工作需要想到排除一些外向性和神经质在EPI而不是BFI 或者 NeoPI-R的测量中出现的理论上的偏差。 这里的五项研究报告没有解决JACBART测验涉及到的所有的可靠性和有 效性。未来的研究将比在这里报告所测量的更多需要审查的JACBART与个性等措施的预测效度和人格结构的研究。这种研究对情感识别能力和人格之间的关系需要产生一个更精确的范围内，而不 是这里的不成熟理论框架。此外，今后的研究将需要解决JACBART和其他目前现有的情感识别能力措施和解码能力之间的关系。当然，有一个问题，关注JACBART提供超出现有其他措施的预测能力的程度，无论情感识别的特异性是否被评价。最后一个方法的问题涉及到的是各种各样的种族和种族背景的人的表情，不只是JACBART所提出的两个。 未来的研究人员还将需要处理JACBART有关的生态效度问题。鉴于JACBART测验集中在实验室设置的情绪面部表情判断，在何种程度上从这种情感识别能力分数在一个可变的环境内伴随着其他渠道的沟通和其他可用的上下文线索，这是一个经验主义的问题需要加以解决。这可能是JACBART捕捉在全范围交流中的大部分变量，或者，它可能是JACBART只捕获了这种变化的一部分。一个相关的问题是JACBART的分数与现实生活的行为，实际情感识别计划，并在日常生活中使用的技能之间的关系。