Emotions, Technology, and Behaviors

Sharon Y. Tettegah, Dorothy L. Espelage

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780081007020
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Social Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Exploring the connections between technology, emotions, and behaviors is increasingly important as we spend more and more time online and in digital environments. Technology, Emotions, and Behavior explains the role of technology in the evolution of both emotions and behaviors, and their interaction with each other. It discusses emotion modeling, distraction, and contagion as related to digital narrative and virtual spaces. It examines issues of trust and technology, behaviors used by individuals who are cut off from technology, and how individuals use technology to cope after disasters such as Hurricane Sandy. Technology, Emotions and Behaviors ends by exploring the construct of empathy and perspective-taking through online videos and socially shared activities. Practitioners and researchers will find this text useful in their work.

• Reviews the intersection between emotional contagion and emotional socialization theory in virtual interactions
• Examines cross-cultural communicative feedback
• Discusses the multi-dimensions of trust in technology
• Covers "digilante" rhetoric and its emotional appeal
• Devotes an entire section to cyberbullying

Section I

Empathy and Perspective-Taking

Chapter 1

Emotional Modulation of Perspective Taking

Implications for Computer-Supported Argumentation

Ulises Xolocotzin^a; Chloe Shu-Hua Yeh^b; Sibel Erduran^{c a} Centre for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico City, Mexico
^b Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK
^c EPI-STEM, The National Centre for STEM Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Abstract

Research on computer-supported argumentation has largely neglected emotional factors. This chapter speculates that arguers emotions are likely to modulate their ability to address the perspective of a counterpart. A study is presented that explores the effects of priming positive, negative, and neutral affect on the response to an argumentative situation designed to assess perspective taking. Affective priming did not change the well-documented tendency of arguers’ to focus on their own position, but positive stimulation generated more conflict at coordinating between their own and a counterpart’s perspective, suggesting that arguers experiencing positive affect might invest more effort while processing others’ arguments. The implications of the study for computer-supported argumentation are discussed.

Keywords

Computer-supported argumentation

Emotions

Perspective taking

CSCL

Affective computing

Acknowledgments

This research was generously funded by an Annual Research Grant Award granted to Ulises Xolocotzin by the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK.

Introduction

The educational strand of computer-supported argumentation has traditionally concentrated on studying technological, epistemic, and social issues (Scheuer, Loll, Pinkwart, & McLaren, 2010), whereas affective factors such as emotions have received less attention, neglecting that emotions are a natural component of argumentation (Ben-Zeev, 1995; Manolescu, 2006; Walton, 2010). This chapter addresses the relation between emotion and perspective taking during argumentation, with emphasis on implications for computer-supported argumentation in educational settings. The relation between emotion and perspective taking during argumentation is relevant for at least two reasons. First, perspective taking is essential for attending to the arguments of a counterpart. The ability to scrutinize others’ arguments is a desired outcome in the development of argumentation skills (Kuhn, 2010). Second, the experience and communication of emotions inherent to argumentation might play a prominent role in the process and outcome of argumentation that takes place in digital environments. In the rest of this chapter, we outline the importance of perspective taking during argumentation and review research suggesting that emotions might be powerful modulators of the ability to argue. Subsequently, a study is presented suggesting that the emotions experienced during argumentative interactions are likely to exert a significant influence in the processing of a counterpart’s perspective. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the empirical results for computer-supported argumentation.

Literature Review

Argumentation in Science Education

The development of argumentation skills is one of the most valued objectives in education (Erduran & Jiménez Aleixandre, 2008; Kuhn, Cheney, & Weinstock, 2000; Voss & Means, 1991; Yackel & Cobb, 1996). The promotion of argumentation in education is consistent with current approaches in philosophy of science that have illustrated that scientific knowledge is not simply discovered in nature, but actively constructed by humans in a process that involves the advancement and refutation of theories through conflict and argumentation (Kitcher, 1988; Sandoval, 2005).

Apart from being concurrent with contemporary philosophy of science, the interest for argumentation in science education stems from an increasing recognition of the cognitive benefits of argumentation. Kuhn (1991) pointed out that by providing the exercise of public reasoning while constructing and defending their arguments, learners are motivated to externalize their thoughts articulating claims and evidence. It is in this way that the discourse of science is appropriated by learners. Nevertheless, it is well recognized that teaching argumentation is a rather complex educational mission. In the following paragraphs, we review literature explaining how perspective taking is one of the most important skills in the development of argumentation skills, one that is as desirable as it is difficult to acquire.

Perspective Taking During Argumentation

Productive argumentation is sustained by arguers’ perspective-taking ability. The notion of perspective taking is akin to concepts such as intersubjectivity and theory of mind and refers to the capacity for understanding the behavior and discourse of others as a function of their mental states (e.g., beliefs, desires, or intentions). Tomasello, Kruger, and Ratner (1999) suggested that perspective taking is an inevitable requirement for learning with others, as in imitation, instruction, or collaboration. In social learning, learners do not just pay attention to the activity of other persons, such as a collaborator or instructor. Instead, learners try to see the situation in the way that the other person sees it, that is, from the perspective of the other. What this implies is that the learner is not trying to learn from the other, but through the other.

In dialogical argumentation, learners construct arguments to support their claims. According to Walton (1989), skilled arguers follow a dual aim that inevitably requires attention to the perspective of a counterpart, one that involves (1) securing commitments from a counterpart that can be used to support one’s own argument and (2) undermining the position of that counterpart by identifying and challenging weaknesses in his or her argument. One major obstacle in the achievement of this dual aim is that most learners, regardless of their age, fail to address a counterpart’s perspective unless explicitly instructed to do so (Felton, 2004; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kuhn & Udell, 2007). The causes of this complex problem remain to be fully explained. Prior research has ruled out some cognitive factors such as one’s own knowledge or the strength of a counterpart’s argument (Kuhn & Udell, 2007). Although other cognitive and social factors are likely to be involved, we argue that emotional factors are worth examining.

Perspective Taking During Computer-Supported Argumentation

The last two decades have seen important advances in the development of technological environments designed to support argumentation in asynchronous and/or synchronous interaction modes. In the asynchronous mode, arguers use text-based communication-making exchanges that are disjointed but persistent over time, as in online discussions groups or forums. This mode of interaction precipitates high-quality argumentation because it allows participants to reflect and build their arguments more carefully than in synchronous environments. In the synchronous mode, arguers interact in real time, using either text-based or audiovisual facilities. This mode allows immediate feedback and the construction of dynamic argumentative sequences (Clark, Stegmann, Weinberger, Menekse, & Erkens, 2008). Other advantages of supporting argumentation with digital technologies include the availability of abundant information resources and intelligent feedback. Furthermore, arguers’ interactions can be enhanced with a range of argument representation tools (Scheuer et al., 2010).

Despite the many advantages that digital technologies offer for supporting argumentation, the problem of arguers failing to address the perspective of a counterpart is as pervasive in computer-supported argumentation as it is in noncomputerized forms of argumentation (e.g., Munneke, Andriessen, Kanselaar, & Kirschner, 2007). Bias toward focusing on one’s own position might be exacerbated by the social constraints faced by arguers interacting around, through, or at computers.

It is well known that the provision of spaces and tools is not enough to precipitate productive and effortful argumentative interactions (Weinberger & Fischer, 2006). This is in part because computerized environments often lack one or many of the social context cues that help to sustain a common ground during face-to-face communication, such as gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, and so on, which in turn might hinder arguers’ willingness to engage in effortful perspective taking (Noroozi, Weinberger, Biemans, Mulder, & Chizari, 2012). As for cognitive factors, it is thought that the capacity to address a counterpart’s perspective diminishes because trying to coordinate the participation in effortful argumentation while resolving a complex task using a range of technological tools overloads arguers’ cognitive capacity (e.g., Munneke et al., 2007).

This chapter advances the hypothesis that arguer’s emotions influence their ability to address each other’s perspective. In the following sections, we review accounts that describe emotions as a natural component of argumentative interactions, followed by a review of psychological research suggesting that perspective taking might be modulated by emotions.

How Emotions Function During Argumentation

Investigations in the educational studies of argumentation have traditionally focused on epistemic factors such as reasoning, conceptual change, and logical relations in discourse (Nielsen, 2011). A similar trend holds for investigations in computer-supported argumentation, a field that has concentrated efforts on issues such as the representation of arguments, either visually or in the form of ontologies, and the automatization of argument analysis and feedback (Scheuer et al., 2010). The fact that emotions have been overlooked in these fields is at odds with the idea that emotion and reason play equally important roles during argumentation.

Ben-Zeev (1995) argued that emotions are argument devices. Emotions serve social functions because they ensure that our situation is taken into account by others, and that others’ si...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• Contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Section I: Empathy and Perspective-Taking
• Section II: Trust, Loss, and Technology
• Section III: Bullying and Technology
• Section IV: Philosophy, Emotions, and Virtual Environments
• Index