School of Psychology

Temperature Effects on Emotional Experiences and Body Language

A study investigating the physiological, psychological and non-verbal links between ‘uncomfortable’ temperatures and the experience of anger, embarrassment and motivation -Summary 2008.

The links between these three variables have been established in physiological and psychological research. Previous research however has not compared the differences in physiological, psychological and non-verbal responses to normal and uncomfortable temperatures or the effect of provocation on emotional experience. The research question experimented on was; what are the physiological, psychological and non-verbal links between ‘uncomfortable’ temperatures and instances of anger/embarrassment? A 3 x 2 x 5 x 2 factorial design with four independent variables and their associated conditions was conducted- Temperature (Cold 11 - 16 OC, Normal 22 – 27 OC or Hot 35 – 40 OC), Evaluative Statement (Provocative or Control), Trial (One, Two Three, Four or Five) and Pre/Post (before or after evaluative statements). Sixty three participants from the Murdoch University Undergraduate Psychology Pool and general community were randomly assigned to a temperature condition. Participants completed an initial Abridged Anger test. They were attached to a Heart monitor, Respiration strain gauge, facial blood flow monitor, skin conductance electrodes and were video taped. Participants were given 30 minutes to attempt to solve an unsolvable puzzle. A five minute baseline was followed by ten three minute intervals where participants were provoked or listened to a control statement and were asked to self-assess their anger, embarrassment and motivation to complete the task. Three kinds of data were collected at each of eleven time points; physiological data, self-assessment data and the video data of non-verbal expression. It was hypothesised that physiological, psychological and non-verbal expression of emotions would be greatest in the hot condition. With the exception of self-assessed motivation which was predicted to the lower in the hot condition due to lethargy.

FINDINGS
Physiological Outcomes
The results found significant physiological heat effects for heart rate and pulse amplitude, but no significant difference for respiration and a greater cold effect for sweating amplitude. For heart rate the hypothesised heat effect was proven through mean comparisons and figure representations.  The hot temperature had the greatest mean (M= 89.66 ±3.15). The significant pair wise comparison also proved the hypothesis that in the hot condition beats per minute were 9.28 beats greater than the normal (p=0.047). Figures also showed a greater mean for the hot conditions across all statement types, pre and post and trials. For respiration the hypothesised heat effect was not consistently shown. The hot condition mean (M=17.82 ±0.37) was only 0.01 greater than the normal (M= 17.81 ±0.39). Figure representations showed the largest difference to be the cold temperature being the lowest recording of breathing rate. No significant pair wise comparisons were shown in respiration. A small heat effect was evident in provocative statements which had greater breathing rates in the hot condition, but this was not statistically significant in the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). For pulse amplitude the hypothesised heat effect was proven statistically and through figure representations. The hot condition had the greatest mean (M=34.94 ±13.10) and cold the lowest (M=-21.0 ±13.41). The significant pair wise comparisons also proved a strong heat effect, pulse amplitude was 55.94% greater in the hot condition that the cold (p=0.004). The pair wise comparison of pre being 22.51% more than post (p=0.000) suggests that pulse was not effected by the verbal statements. For sweating amplitude the results suggest a cold effect or ceiling effect for the hot condition results. The means comparisons showed cold (M=0.42 ±0.11) is greater than the hot condition (M=0.26 ±0.11). These results are unlike the other physiological reactions to heat. The hot condition results are explained by a ceiling effect, whereby the participants have perspired as much as they possibly can and therefore can not sweat anymore in such conditions.
Psychological (Self-assessment) Outcomes
Significant self-assessment results for anger and embarrassment ratings were found in the figure comparisons but not repeated-measures analysis. The Self-assessment data in figures showed a large overall heat effect for anger and embarrassment ratings however there were no significant main effects based on temperature. For anger self-assessments the hot condition had the greatest mean (M=3.53 ±0.38). It is equally noted that along with the hypothesised heat effect anger self-assessment results showed an increase in self-reported anger over the trials, which was influenced by statement type (interaction effects). This is shown in the significant pair comparison where trial five had 1.57 more ratings than trial one (p=0.000) suggesting anger is greatest in the hot condition again. For Embarrassment self-assessments the hot condition had the greatest mean (M= 2.96 ±0.43) and the cold the lowest (M=2.45 ±0.44). There were no significant variations over the five trials for embarrassment self-assessments. For motivation self-assessments if was hypothesised that there would be a lethargic effect seen in the hot and cold conditions.  This was proven in means comparisons and figure representations. The hot temperature had the lowest mean (M= 5.63 ±0.53) and cold the highest (M=6.51 ±0.56). Figures also confirmed the lethargic effect of hot temperatures as predicted from previous research as the cold condition had the greatest effect. Motivation was shown to significantly decrease over all temperature conditions through pair wise comparisons; trial one had 1.92 more self-assessments than trial five (p=0.000).
Body Language (Non-Verbal) Outcomes
The results found significant non-verbal heat effects for anger and embarrassment body language and a greater cold effect for motivational and general body language. These effects were however only proven by figure comparisons. The main effects, interactions and pair wise comparisons for each non-verbal variable yielded no variations greater than one rating. Due to the nature of the assessment of body language a difference lower than one rating was not seen as a significant outcome. For non-verbal anger expression the hot condition had the greatest mean (M=1.46±0.10). Unlike self-assessment of anger, non-verbal anger did not increase over the trials. For non-verbal embarrassment expression the hot condition also had the greatest mean (M=1.53±0.09). Figures showed the greatest heat effect in trial one indicating some decrease of embarrassment expression over the trials. These non-verbal emotional expression results indicate that people are less able to restrict and suppress their emotional expression in ‘uncomfortably’ hot temperatures and compared to the above self-assessments of emotions over-exaggerate their emotions. For non-verbal motivation expression the lethargic hypothesis on motivation self-assessment results carried over into the non-verbal data as there was a significant main effect for trials F (4, 57) =3.38, p=0.015, indicating that over the trials non-verbal motivation decreased (as was seen for self-assessed motivation). The hot (M=1.04±0.11) and cold temperatures (M=0.87±0.11) had lowered means compared to the normal (M=1.25±0.11) indicating again confirmation that uncomfortable temperatures have a lethargic effect decreasing motivation. For general non-verbal expression cold had the greatest mean (M=0.88±0.09) disproving the heat effect hypothesis.

CONCLUSION
The hypothesised heat effect was proven for heart rate, pulse amplitude, anger and embarrassment self-assessments and anger and embarrassment body language. We were able to determine in an artificial setting that temperature effects the physiological, psychological and non-verbal expression of two specific emotions. This result can be applied and extended to many existing scientific and real world fields. For example, being able to understand the effect heat has on individual emotions and verbal and non-verbal reactions research could extend to see why specific environments affect efficiency. Specifically in the work environment employee dynamics may be affected (mining and seasonal summer work). This study also found some cooling effect which may have implications for cold climatic work conditions, attitudes in cold climates and general adaptability of persons exposed to one temperature for extended periods of time. Therefore along with adding temperature effects to a vast spectrum of emotional research the current study has broader implications for all areas concerning productivity and dynamics in temperature contexts (extremes or mid-range, natural or artificial). These results align with findings from previous studies including Anderson, (1989), Anderson, Deuser & DeNeve (1998) and Baron & Bell, (1976). The cold effect results aligned with findings of Pilcher, Nadler & Busch (2002). The motivation results for self-assessment and body language aligned with reported instances of increased lethargic moods and performance in cold and hot temperature (Anderson & Anderson, 1998). The non-verbal results have also linked emotional experience with commonly known ideals of the predictive power of body language and its indication of underlying thoughts and processes.

In conclusion this study has proven heat has an impact on the association between physiological, psychological and non-verbal emotional expression and motivation. 

REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A. (1989). Temperature and Aggression: Ubiquitous Effects of Heat on Occurrence of Human Violence, Psychological Bulletin, 106, 1, 74-96
Anderson, C. A., & Anderson, K. B. (1998). Temperature and aggression: Paradox, controversy, and a (fairly) clear picture. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 247-298). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E. & DeNeve, K. M. (1998). Hot temperatures, Hostile affect, Hostile cognition and Arousal: Test of a general model of affective aggression, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 5, 434-448
Baron, R. A. & Bell, P. A. (1976). Aggression and Heat: The Influence of Ambient Temperature, Negative Affect and a cooling drink on Physical Aggression, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 3, 245-255
Pilcher, J.J., Nadler, E. & Busch, C. (2002). Effects of Hot and Cold Temperature exposure on Performance: a Meta-analytic review, Ergonomics, 45, 10, 682-698