A comparative approach to affect and cooperation
A comparative approach to affect and cooperation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.09.027
复制
发表时间：
2019-12
影响因子：
8.2
通讯作者：
J. Massen;F. Behrens;J. S. Martin;Martina Stocker;S. Brosnan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Massen;F. Behrens;J. S. Martin;Martina Stocker;S. Brosnan
比较情感科学的一个核心前提是，我们可以通过比较包括人类在内的各种物种的情感现象来最好地了解情感的原因和后果。我们认为情感在动物中是广泛共享的，但一个关键的挑战是准确地代表每个物种的情感体验。在行为和认知的比较研究中，一种常见的方法是开发可以跨物种使用的标准化实验范式，假设如果使用相同的任务，我们可以直接比较行为反应。这种实验方法基于两个基本假设：第一，不同物种对这些范式的感知和情感反应是相同的;第二，对这些范式的行为和生理（包括内分泌和神经）反应是同源的;如果这些假设中的任何一个都不正确，那么比较就变得不那么简单了。我们在本文中的目标是总结已被用于这种比较研究的主导范式，特别关注合作文献中常见的范式，并批判性地讨论主导假设这些任务可以或应该测量的情感状态。然后，我们考虑这种实验方法的优点和缺点，并考虑替代方案，可能会提高我们的理解。我们希望，这将有助于学者认识和避免固有的陷阱，在研究影响，并激励他们创造新的，生态相关的范式来检查整个动物王国的影响。
A central premise of the science of comparative affect is that we can best learn about the causes and consequences of affect by comparing affective phenomena across a variety of species, including humans. We take as a given that affect is widely shared across animals, but a key challenge is to accurately represent each species' affective experience. A common approach in the comparative study of behavior and cognition is to develop standardized experimental paradigms that can be used across species, with the assumption that if the same task is being used, we can directly compare behavioral responses. This experimental approach rests on two underlying assumptions: first, that different species' perception of and affective response to these paradigms are the same; and second, that behavioral and physiological (including endocrine and neural) responses to these paradigms are homologous; if either of these assumptions is not true, then the comparison becomes much less straightforward. Our goal in the present paper is to summarize the dominant paradigms that have been used for such comparative research, with a particular focus on paradigms common in the cooperation literature, and to critically discuss dominant assumptions about what affective states these tasks can or should measure. We then consider the advantages and drawbacks of this experimental method, and consider alternatives that may improve our understanding. We hope that this will help scholars recognize and avoid pitfalls inherent in studying affect, and stimulate them to create novel, ecologically relevant paradigms for examining affect across the animal kingdom.