Article

Screaming, yelling, whining, and crying: categorical and intensity differences in vocal expressions of anger and sadness in children's tantrums.

Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Road, Storrs, CT 06269-1020, USA.
Emotion (Impact Factor: 3.88). 06/2011; 11(5):1124-33. DOI: 10.1037/a0024173
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Young children's temper tantrums offer a unique window into the expression and regulation of strong emotions. Previous work, largely based on parental report, suggests that two emotions, anger and sadness, have different behavioral manifestations and different time courses within tantrums. Individual motor and vocal behaviors, reported by parents, have been interpreted as representing different levels of intensity within each emotion category. The present study used high-fidelity audio recordings to capture the acoustic features of children's vocalizations during tantrums. Results indicated that perceptually categorized screaming, yelling, crying, whining, and fussing each have distinct acoustic features. Screaming and yelling form a group with similar acoustic features while crying, whining, and fussing form a second acoustically related group. Within these groups, screaming may reflect a higher intensity of anger than yelling while fussing, whining, and crying may reflect an increasing intensity of sadness.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
291 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The voice expresses a wide range of emotions through modulations of acoustic parameters such as frequency and amplitude. Although the acoustics of individual emotions are well understood, attempts to describe the acoustic correlates of broad emotional categories such as valence have yielded mixed results. In the present study, we analyzed the acoustics of emotional valence for different families of emotion. We divided emotional vocalizations into “motivational,” “moral,” and “aesthetic” families as defined by the OCC (Ortony, Clore, and Collins) model of emotion. Subjects viewed emotional scenarios and were cued to vocalize congruent exclamations in response to them, for example, “Yay!” and “Damn!”. Positive valence was weakly associated with high-pitched and loud vocalizations. However, valence interacted with emotion family for both pitch and amplitude. A general acoustic code for valence does not hold across families of emotion, whereas family-specific codes provide a more accurate description of vocal emotions. These findings are consolidated into a set of “rules of expression” relating vocal dimensions to emotion dimensions.
    Journal of Voice. 07/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the intrapersonal effects of anger suppression in negotiations. Specifically, we examined when and how anger suppression influences negotiation effectiveness, proposing that suppressing anger may reduce negotiators’ ability to focus on the negotiation and increase their cognitive exhaustion, both of which would in turn lower negotiators’ performance. In addition, we proposed that suppressing anger integral to the negotiation is more costly than suppressing anger incidental to the negotiation. Design/Methodology/Approach Data were obtained from a controlled laboratory experiment in which a total of 204 undergraduate students participated in a computer-mediated negotiation. Findings Negotiators who suppressed their anger, compared to those who did not, were less able to focus on the negotiation, which in turn decreased their negotiation performance. The indirect negative effect was only significant when negotiators suppressed anger integral rather than incidental to the negotiation. Implications The findings suggest that negotiators should be aware when it is (not) detrimental to suppress anger in negotiations. Particularly, negotiators need to be careful and may adopt strategies to maintain their attentional focus when they attempt to suppress anger that is induced by the negotiation process. Originality/Value Integrating research on emotion regulation with negotiation research, this study is one of the first to investigate the intrapersonal effects of anger suppression in negotiations. More significantly, this study identified both an important psychological mechanism and a moderator of the effects of anger suppression on negotiations.
    Journal of Business and Psychology 03/2015; · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study investigated the presentation of tantrum behaviors in individuals with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis with and without a comorbid diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Participants included 347 children ranging in age from 2 to 18 years old. Diagnostic categories in the current study were based upon clinical diagnosis. The severity of ASD symptomology was measured by the Autism Spectrum Disorder-Diagnostic Child Version (ASD-DC). The presence and severity of tantrum behaviors were measured by the Tantrum behavior subscale of the Autism Spectrum Disorders-Comorbidity for Children (ASD-CC). The influence of diagnosis and ASD symptomology had upon the expression of tantrum behaviors were examined, controlling for participant age. Initial analysis revealed significant differences in the expression of tantrum behavior between the ASD, ADHD and ASD/ADHD groups. However, age did not have a significant influence on the exhibition of tantrum behaviors. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that those individuals diagnosed with an ASD and a comorbid ADHD diagnosis exhibited significantly greater tantrum behavior. Post hoc analyses identified a significant positive correlation between increases in ASD symptomology and elevations of the severity of tantrum behaviors for each group. The observed correlation for the ADHD group was found to be significantly greater than the ASD group. Correlations for individual item responses of the ASD-CC were also computed and discussed for each diagnostic group.
    Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 11/2013; 7(11):1339–1345. · 2.96 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
10 Downloads
Available from