The intensity calculation functions that make use of these variables
within the simulation are still under consideration. Our initial goal is
simply to establish some reasonably monotonic relationship between the
feature values which we are able to represent within the simulator and the
intensity of the simulated emotions resulting from the specified eliciting
conditions. There are many such simple relationships that can be captured.
However, to model the subtle effects of some of the variables, including
their inter-dependence with one another, and their non-linear effects, more
complex functions are needed.
As with the determination of ranges and defaults, the particular intensity-calculation functions used are not important to the reasoning architecture. These can be changed to accommodate different kinds of psychologically motivated experiments. The only fixed link from the intensity functions to the rest of the design is that they must return the scalar values which are used to set the various thresholds for different intensities in the generation of emotion instances, and that they return values for the different categories of emotion that are consistent with one another. Also important to note is that values for variables must be used consistently in both the elicitation of emotions, and their manifestation, since the appraisal mechanism passes variable bindings to the emotion manifestation mechanism.
Lastly, one final implication of our approach is that an agent might appraise a situation many different ways such that all the appraisals lead to the same intensity level in the resulting emotion, even with respect to the same principles and goals. An agent might, for example, be particularly angry because she is already not feeling well, or alternatively because she is already annoyed with the one responsible for her anger. In our architecture, such differences are important because, as just noted, the bindings for the values of the different emotion-intensity variables are passed to the action generation component of the AR, and might influence the reasoner's choice of actions for the experiencing agent.
Normalization variables are included in each function so that the relative strengths of emotions will be correct. Normalization is important for two reasons. First, different emotion types have different numbers of variables, which would affect their overall intensity range. Second, the intensities for compound emotions (e.g., anger) are based on the intensities bindings of two construals rather than one, and this can only be done in a consistent manner if the constituent construals are first normalized.
Figure 2 shows the basic outline of a function that calculates an emotion intensity for simple goal-relevant appraisals. Note that the defaults for mood-variables (e.g., depression-ecstasy) are those for the function only, and may be superseded by a different default for a particular agent.
Figure 3 shows a portion of a similar function used to calculate the intensities of fortunes-of-others-emotions. In this case the variables represent the supposed values for the other agent. We add variables for friendship-animosity and emotional-interrelatedness. As these values increase so do the strength of the resulting fortunes-of-other emotions. In addition we add a calculation for the effect of perceived deservingness or undeservingness. For example, if one is resentful over the good fortune of an adversary, but the adversary is seen as deserving, then the intensity of the resentment is lowered according to the degree of deservingness.