COMMunication
RESearch.NET

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
| <WRAP> 
====== Positive Emotions Are Not Created Equal ======
Virtually every one of the 5,000 advertisements we see in a day (Story, 2007) is designed to get us to want something. Our brain gets plenty of training in desire and striving, and we’re conditioned to think that acquiring things will make us happy. We are less reminded to value those things that actually are more effective at generating long-term happiness, such as social connectedness, mindfulness, and engagement. Yet both acquiring things and connecting to people come packaged with positive emotions, so what’s the difference, and does it matter which positive emotions we support?

Paul Gilbert and Choden (2013) describe two physiological systems linked to two groups of positive emotions, each of which is distinguished by distinct evolutionary, neurological, and physiological features:

1. The excitement and drive system. Associated with the neurotransmitter dopamine and with activation of the sympathetic nervous system, the excitement and drive system generates states such as pride, enthusiasm, and desire as well as urges linked to achievement, acquisition, consumption, and ownership. From an evolutionary standpoint, this system energizes and rewards us for seeking out food, sex, shelter, and other good stuff.

2. The affiliative and soothing system. Associated with the release of endorphins and possibly oxytocin as well as with activation of the parasympathetic nervous system, the affiliative and soothing system generates states such as calm, compassion, and love and urges us to look after, prevent harm to, and care for others, as well as see them flourish. From an evolutionary standpoint, it motivates and rewards us to look after offspring, form and tend to social relationships, and take care of the world we live in.

Whereas the drive system gives us the hyped-up buzz that follows achievement or accompanies anticipation of reaching a goal (so familiar in gameplay), the affiliative system gives us the warm glow of affection, the fulfilling joy of savored experience, and a great time out with friends. Both are important, and, naturally, they frequently come in combination. But it is the affiliative system that is critically necessary for tempering our negative emotions (such as anger and fear) and for keeping the excitement and drive system in check. Unchecked, the drive system can lead to selfish determination and destructive pleasure seeking, greed, addiction, and loneliness. As Gilbert and Choden (2013) put it, “Harnessed up, drives are helpful and essential, but unregulated they can be extremely damaging. Excessive drive leads to over self-focus, immoral and corrupt practices because of the enticements,” as well as “callousness and indifference towards those who suffer.”

Gilbert and Choden also explain that the affiliative system keeps us in balance physically and mentally. “Our brains are set up to be calmed down in the face of kindness. … [K]indness and feeling connected to people will help balance your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems—and this can be the case whether the kindness and affiliation comes [sic] from yourself or from those around you.” Gilbert and others have actually found that compassion and self-compassion are sources of resilience and mental flourishing, and their cultivation is effective in the treatment of mental health problems (but we get to that in chapter 12).

In the context of design for positive emotions, the difference between these two systems and the consequences of an imbalance should lead us to look at the various ways our technologies impact each of them. To our knowledge, there has not been any research in HCI from this perspective.

We would speculate that technology has the potential to (and already does) work with both the drive system and the affiliative system, but that it has (like our society) rather disproportionately targeted the drive and excitement system. This is unsurprising because digital technologies were largely conceived as productivity and work tools to begin with, and perhaps if they had stayed in the workplace, the disproportion wouldn’t be so inappropriate. But now digital technologies take part in everything, from our intimate relationships to the ways we care for ourselves and others, so what we might come to refer to as “affiliative design,” or design to support the affiliative system and its associated positive emotions, seems far more appropriate for many of these contexts.

For example, no one would have considered inviting a mainframe into bed in the 1960s, but today people can use computers to track their sex lives. Apps such as Spreadsheets and Sexulator show just how far our productivity and achievement mindset goes. However, one comment from a reader of a women’s magazine is revealing. Her favorite aspect of a sex-tracking app wasn’t the tracking at all, but rather the new opportunity for expressing love playfully: “My favorite part: being able to leave messages for my husband. I’d say, ‘You were really hot last night!’ or ‘That was fabulous! Hope we can do it again soon!’ He was pleasantly surprised, and it was fun to have our little secret.”3 Features that supported the affiliative rather than achievement-driven positive emotions added value to her experience.

What’s potentially problematic is that it’s easy to see how tracking things such as intercourse that are intended to be spontaneous and genuine expressions of human connection could lead to dissatisfaction, comparison, guilt, self-criticism, and so on. Even if this drive-based achievement focus leads to positive emotions such as pride, how might it shift us away from the affiliative motivations and emotions more capable of enriching our relationships? And how far do we go with such tracking? Would we encourage children to track how many hugs they get from their parents? What’s important is to acknowledge that how we frame an activity through the design of technology, what positive emotions we design to support, what rewards and features we focus on, can change how users approach and feel about the activity itself—as well as how much they can benefit from the technology psychologically. Design is not a one-way street. Using a technology will have consequences on how we view and engage with the activity it is meant to enhance or monitor. Tracking intimacy will affect how we view and engage in intimacy.

Therefore, just as extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motivation (which we discuss in the next chapter), we speculate that activating our drive system has the capacity to undermine the activation of our affiliative system, which might have potentially negative consequences in certain contexts. But the flip side is that embracing design for the affiliative system could prove to be an antidote to the negative side effects of an overfocus on the drive system. For example, some early research suggests that design for affiliative experience might help curb addiction. Murat Iskender and Ahmet Akin (2011) found a link between self-compassion and a reduced likelihood of Internet addiction. Such a correlation holds incredible promise for future designs that intrinsically guard against imbalance by including support for affiliative emotions.

Therefore, let us innovate creative ways to develop digital opportunities for sharing kindness, expressing compassion, feeling admiration, relishing gratitude, enjoying contentment—rather than simply always falling habitually back on the promotion of wanting and striving. Our wellbeing, our families, our communities, and ecological sustainability may depend on it.
</WRAP>  | <WRAP>
====== Positive Emotions Are Not Created Equal ======
Virtually every one of the 5,000 advertisements we see in a day (Story, 2007) is designed to get us to want something. Our brain gets plenty of training in desire and striving, and we’re conditioned to think that acquiring things will make us happy. We are less reminded to value those things that actually are more effective at generating long-term happiness, such as social connectedness, mindfulness, and engagement. Yet both acquiring things and connecting to people come packaged with positive emotions, so what’s the difference, and does it matter which positive emotions we support?

Paul Gilbert and Choden (2013) describe two physiological systems linked to two groups of positive emotions, each of which is distinguished by distinct evolutionary, neurological, and physiological features:

1. The excitement and drive system. Associated with the neurotransmitter dopamine and with activation of the sympathetic nervous system, the excitement and drive system generates states such as pride, enthusiasm, and desire as well as urges linked to achievement, acquisition, consumption, and ownership. From an evolutionary standpoint, this system energizes and rewards us for seeking out food, sex, shelter, and other good stuff.

2. The affiliative and soothing system. Associated with the release of endorphins and possibly oxytocin as well as with activation of the parasympathetic nervous system, the affiliative and soothing system generates states such as calm, compassion, and love and urges us to look after, prevent harm to, and care for others, as well as see them flourish. From an evolutionary standpoint, it motivates and rewards us to look after offspring, form and tend to social relationships, and take care of the world we live in.

Whereas the drive system gives us the hyped-up buzz that follows achievement or accompanies anticipation of reaching a goal (so familiar in gameplay), the affiliative system gives us the warm glow of affection, the fulfilling joy of savored experience, and a great time out with friends. Both are important, and, naturally, they frequently come in combination. But it is the affiliative system that is critically necessary for tempering our negative emotions (such as anger and fear) and for keeping the excitement and drive system in check. Unchecked, the drive system can lead to selfish determination and destructive pleasure seeking, greed, addiction, and loneliness. As Gilbert and Choden (2013) put it, “Harnessed up, drives are helpful and essential, but unregulated they can be extremely damaging. Excessive drive leads to over self-focus, immoral and corrupt practices because of the enticements,” as well as “callousness and indifference towards those who suffer.”

Gilbert and Choden also explain that the affiliative system keeps us in balance physically and mentally. “Our brains are set up to be calmed down in the face of kindness. … [K]indness and feeling connected to people will help balance your sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems—and this can be the case whether the kindness and affiliation comes [sic] from yourself or from those around you.” Gilbert and others have actually found that compassion and self-compassion are sources of resilience and mental flourishing, and their cultivation is effective in the treatment of mental health problems (but we get to that in chapter 12).

In the context of design for positive emotions, the difference between these two systems and the consequences of an imbalance should lead us to look at the various ways our technologies impact each of them. To our knowledge, there has not been any research in HCI from this perspective.

We would speculate that technology has the potential to (and already does) work with both the drive system and the affiliative system, but that it has (like our society) rather disproportionately targeted the drive and excitement system. This is unsurprising because digital technologies were largely conceived as productivity and work tools to begin with, and perhaps if they had stayed in the workplace, the disproportion wouldn’t be so inappropriate. But now digital technologies take part in everything, from our intimate relationships to the ways we care for ourselves and others, so what we might come to refer to as “affiliative design,” or design to support the affiliative system and its associated positive emotions, seems far more appropriate for many of these contexts.

For example, no one would have considered inviting a mainframe into bed in the 1960s, but today people can use computers to track their sex lives. Apps such as Spreadsheets and Sexulator show just how far our productivity and achievement mindset goes. However, one comment from a reader of a women’s magazine is revealing. Her favorite aspect of a sex-tracking app wasn’t the tracking at all, but rather the new opportunity for expressing love playfully: “My favorite part: being able to leave messages for my husband. I’d say, ‘You were really hot last night!’ or ‘That was fabulous! Hope we can do it again soon!’ He was pleasantly surprised, and it was fun to have our little secret.”3 Features that supported the affiliative rather than achievement-driven positive emotions added value to her experience.

What’s potentially problematic is that it’s easy to see how tracking things such as intercourse that are intended to be spontaneous and genuine expressions of human connection could lead to dissatisfaction, comparison, guilt, self-criticism, and so on. Even if this drive-based achievement focus leads to positive emotions such as pride, how might it shift us away from the affiliative motivations and emotions more capable of enriching our relationships? And how far do we go with such tracking? Would we encourage children to track how many hugs they get from their parents? What’s important is to acknowledge that how we frame an activity through the design of technology, what positive emotions we design to support, what rewards and features we focus on, can change how users approach and feel about the activity itself—as well as how much they can benefit from the technology psychologically. Design is not a one-way street. Using a technology will have consequences on how we view and engage with the activity it is meant to enhance or monitor. Tracking intimacy will affect how we view and engage in intimacy.

Therefore, just as extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motivation (which we discuss in the next chapter), we speculate that activating our drive system has the capacity to undermine the activation of our affiliative system, which might have potentially negative consequences in certain contexts. But the flip side is that embracing design for the affiliative system could prove to be an antidote to the negative side effects of an overfocus on the drive system. For example, some early research suggests that design for affiliative experience might help curb addiction. Murat Iskender and Ahmet Akin (2011) found a link between self-compassion and a reduced likelihood of Internet addiction. Such a correlation holds incredible promise for future designs that intrinsically guard against imbalance by including support for affiliative emotions.

Therefore, let us innovate creative ways to develop digital opportunities for sharing kindness, expressing compassion, feeling admiration, relishing gratitude, enjoying contentment—rather than simply always falling habitually back on the promotion of wanting and striving. Our wellbeing, our families, our communities, and ecological sustainability may depend on it.
...
</WRAP>  |