Effects of work‐related norm violations and general beliefs about the world on feelings of shame and guilt: A comparison between Turkey and the Netherlands

This paper aimed at investigating the effects of work‐related norm violations (i.e., violations of interpersonal and work regulation norms) and individuals' general beliefs about the world (i.e., social axioms: reward for application, social cynicism) on feelings of shame and guilt in Turkey and in the Netherlands. An experimental study involving 103 Turkish and 111 Dutch participants showed that work norm violations elicited feelings of guilt and shame differently in Turkey and the Netherlands. Specifically, interpersonal norm violation in Turkey elicited feelings of shame and guilt more strongly than did violation of a work regulation norm, whereas no differential effects were found in the Netherlands. As expected, violation of a work regulation norm elicited feelings of shame and guilt more strongly in the Netherlands than in Turkey, whereas violation of an interpersonal norm elicited feelings of shame and guilt more strongly in Turkey than in the Netherlands. The findings provide further evidence for the moderating effects of social axioms: in both countries, participants high in social cynicism felt less ashamed when they violated a work regulation norm than did those low in social cynicism. Our findings are relevant for understanding the underlying mechanisms of norm violations at work, thereby offering a new avenue for investigating cultural differences in the workplace. The latter may be of particular relevance in times of globalization and diversity in the workplace.     

When does anger evoke self‐interest and fairness motives? The moderating effects of perceived responsibility for needs

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that anger evokes both self‐interest and fairness motives, but it is unclear what factors determine the evocation of these motives. We examined the idea that the type of relationship, indexed by the perceived responsibility for a partner's needs, moderates the effect of anger on self‐interest and fairness motives by constructing the following hypotheses: Participants will be motivated to protect their self‐interests when they feel anger toward an other who they perceive has the responsibility for needs, while this will not be the case when they feel anger toward an other who they do not perceive has a responsibility for needs (Hypothesis 1), and participants will be motivated to restore fairness regardless of whether the target of anger has a responsibility for needs or not (Hypothesis 2). The Japanese participants in this study rated their anger experiences in terms of the intensity of angry feelings, the perception of responsibility of the other for their own needs, the closeness of the relationship prior to the experience of anger, and the motives that were evoked. Regression analysis supported both hypotheses, implying that concerns related to self‐interest in close relationships reflect the desire for the maintenance of these relationships.     

Predicting emotional reactions after being harmed by another

Being harmed by others is a frequent and disturbing experience in normal social life, resulting in the arousal of two emotional complexes, anger and worry. The present research developed a model to predict these two dimensions of emotional response to being harmed. It was argued that in addition to being driven by judgments of blame, anger is also enhanced by assessments that one's social face has been damaged. The victim's judgment of this face loss also contributes to feelings of worry, as one's social credibility has been compromised in the eyes of others by being harmed. Worry is further augmented by the victim's concern about the damage done to his or her relationship with the perpetrator by the harm-doing. As hypothesized, both perceived image loss and blame judgments were found to predict the emotional complex of anger, while image loss and the perceived harm to the relationship predicted the emotional complex of worry. This research supplemented the well-researched Western construct of blame in response to harm by incorporating the more salient collectivist concerns of image loss and relationship damage, pushing our models of social processes to be more comprehensive and ultimately universal in their scope.     

Emotions as guardians of group norms: expressions of anger and disgust drive inferences about autonomy and purity violations

Other people’s emotional reactions to a third person’s behaviour are potentially informative about what is appropriate within a given situation. We investigated whether and how observers’ inferences of such injunctive norms are shaped by expressions of anger and disgust. Building on the moral emotions literature, we hypothesised that angry and disgusted expressions produce relative differences in the strength of autonomy-based versus purity-based norm inferences. We report three studies (plus three supplementary studies) using different types of stimuli (vignette-based, video clips) to investigate how emotional reactions shape norms about potential norm violations (eating snacks, drinking alcohol), and contexts (groups of friends, a university, a company). Consistent with our theoretical argument, the results indicate that observers use others’ emotional reactions not only to infer whether a particular behaviour is inappropriate, but also why it is inappropriate: because it primarily violates autonomy standards (as suggested relatively more strongly by expressions of anger) or purity standards (as suggested relatively more strongly by expressions of disgust). We conclude that the social functionality of emotions in groups extends to shaping norms based on moral standards.     

A bumpy train ride: a field experiment on insult, honor, and emotional reactions

The present research examined the relationship between adherence to honor norms and emotional reactions after an insult. Participants were 42 Dutch male train travelers, half of whom were insulted by a confederate who bumped into the participant and made a degrading remark. Compared with insulted participants with a weak adherence to honor norms, insulted participants with a strong adherence to honor norms were (a) more angry, (b) less joyful, (c) less fearful, and (d) less resigned. Moreover, insulted participants with a strong adherence to honor norms perceived more anger in subsequent stimuli than not-insulted participants with a strong adherence to these norms. The present findings support a direct relationship among insult, adherence to honor norms, and emotional reactions.     

Explorations in the Social Construction of Anger

On the basis of the social-constructionist theory of anger, 2 studies were conducted to explore the social rules relating to anger appraisals and anger-related responses. In Study 1, 400 adults were asked about appropriate causes of anger and appropriate anger-related actions. Attribution of blame, impact or severity of harm, and perceived usefulness of becoming angry emerged as the major determinants of appropriate anger. Talking things over with the offender was judged as the most appropriate behavior when angry at someone. In Study 2, 112 adults were presented with vignettes depicting anger-provoking incidents that varied in regard to the nature of the provocation and the nature of the relationship between offender and target. Both factors significantly influenced the perceived appropriateness of anger-intensity and anger-related behavior. Taken together, the results provide evidence for high social consensus regarding the appropriate causes of anger and anger-related actions. However, there were also noteworthy interindividual differences and cross-situational variations in everyday constructions of anger. The implications of the findings for the social-constructionist view of anger are discussed.     

People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility

Three experiments explored determinants of punitive character attributions to norm violators. Experiment 1 showed that ideological conservatism and manipulated threat to society increased anger and attributional punitiveness when there was ambiguity about culpability. Experiment 2 showed that informing observers that norm violations were widespread and rarely punished increased attributional punitiveness by activating anger-charged retributive goals. Experiment 3 showed that liberals and conservatives alike felt justified in assigning greater blame to high-status perpetrators who commit acts of negligence with more severe consequences but that only conservatives felt justified in doing so for low-status perpetrators. Overall, the results reinforce the hypothesis that societal threat activates a prosecutorial mindset identifiable by a correlated cluster of attributions, emotions, punishment goals and punitiveness.     

Temporal dynamics of guilt: changes in the role of interpersonal and intrapsychic factors

Baumeister, Stillwell and Heatherton (1994) argue that guilt serves primarily interpersonal functions and take issue with more traditional intrapsychic accounts of guilty feelings, in which causality, responsibility, and blame are emphasized. We examined the validity of these claims by asking 198 college students to imagine that they destroyed the valued property of either their best friend or mother, under each of three conditions of causal responsibility (accidental, foreseeable, unjustifiably intended). They then rated the reactions they anticipated from the victim (anger, disappointment; change in impression of the perpetrator), their perceived blameworthiness, aspects of causality, and how guilty they would feel immediately after perpetrating the harm as well as an entire day later. Imagined guilt was curvilinearly related to responsibility at time 1, but linearly at time 2. Results suggest that people only weigh interpersonal concerns more heavily after time has elapsed, but that both factors integrally affect feelings of guilt. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does quick to blame mean quick to anger? The role of agreeableness in dissociating blame and anger

Two studies investigated agreeableness, the accessibility of blame, and their potential interactive effects on anger. To measure the chronic accessibility of blame, a choice reaction time task was created that required participants to classify words as blameworthy or not. It was found that for individuals low in agreeableness, blame accessibility was positively related to anger and arguments during the course of daily life, hostile feelings during the course of a semester, and anger in response to a short video involving a blameworthy action. This same straightforward relationship between the accessibility of blame and anger did not characterize those high in agreeableness. The results suggest that agreeableness plays an important role in facilitating (low agreeableness) or inhibiting (high agreeableness) the link between accessible blame and anger.     

亲亲为大，亲贤仍重：亲疏关系、人情取向对人际信任的影响

本文基于以往理论,提炼出人际交往中影响信任的两大因素：关系因素和个人特质因素,通过两个情景启动实验尝试探索亲疏关系、可信赖特质（能力、善意和诚信）对人际信任的影响机制及其作用的边界条件。结果发现：亲疏关系除了可以直接预测人际信任之外,还可以通过感知被信任者的可信赖特质产生间接影响。此外,个体的人情取向可以分别调节亲疏关系对感知被信任者的能力、诚信特质的效应和通过感知被信任者的能力、诚信特质影响人际信任的间接效应,并且作用的主要对象是关系网中的熟人。本研究对理解当代中国社会在多元文化交融下的人际信任具有重要意义。     

Anger: Scary Good

I argue that recent attempts to vindicate blame have failed to fully face the vengeful feelings and angry outbursts that have led to scepticism about blame’s ethical status. This paper endeavours to fill that gap. I claim that feelings of angry blame are characteristically responsive to threats to social status, and that angry expressions are distinctive because of their scariness. Still, I conclude, there is an important place for angry blame in good lives and good relationships. In offering a defence of angry feelings and expressions, I argue that blame’s seemingly objectionable features are crucial to its expressive and restorative power.     

Anger, disgust, and presumption of harm as reactions to taboo-breaking behaviors

Three experiments investigated the relationship between the presumption of harm in harmfree violations of creatural norms (taboos) and the moral emotions of anger and disgust. In Experiment 1, participants made a presumption of harm to others from taboo violations, even in conditions described as harmless and not involving other people; this presumption was predicted by anger and not disgust. Experiment 2 manipulated taboo violation and included a cognitive load task to clarify the post hoc nature of presumption of harm. Experiment 3 was similar but more accurately measured presumed harm. In Experiments 2 and 3, only without load was symbolic harm presumed, indicating its post hoc function to justify moral anger, which was not affected by load. In general, manipulations of harmfulness to others predicted moral anger better than moral disgust, whereas manipulations of taboo predicted disgust better. The presumption of harm was found on measures of symbolic rather than actual harm when a choice existed. These studies clarify understanding of the relationship between emotions and their justification when people consider victimless, offensive acts.     

Roadway justice – Making angry drivers,happy drivers

The enforcement of traffic laws by police punishes law violators and reduces the likelihood that other drivers will violate laws via vicariously perceived punishment. The purpose of the current study was to determine the effect of punishment of violators on the feelings of anger and happiness in witnesses and victims. A sample of 279 individuals was exposed to four animated simulations of unjust driving behavior. Participants indicated how angry and happy the behaviors made them feel. Participants then indicated feelings of happiness and anger a second time, after being informed that the violator had been punished. While inconsistent, analyses generally indicated that perceived punishment reduced feelings of anger and increased feelings of happiness. In addition to increasing roadway safety, the current study shows the importance of active police enforcement, which could positively impact the emotional states of victims and witnesses of unjust driving behavior.     

The Epistemic Norm of Blame

In this paper I argue that it is inappropriate for us to blame others if it is not reasonable for us to believe that they are morally responsible for their actions. The argument for this claim relies on two controversial claims: first, that assertion is governed by the epistemic norm of reasonable belief, and second, that the epistemic norm of implicatures is relevantly similar to the norm of assertion. I defend these claims, and I conclude by briefly suggesting how this putative norm of blame can serve as the basis for general norms of interpersonal generosity.     

Individual differences in preschoolers' physiological and verbal responses to videotaped angry interactions

Individual differences in selection of intensity of angry interactions and physiological and self-reported responses to interadult anger were examined in preschoolers (N=34). Children watched two videotaped angry interactions between adults, while their heart rates and skin conductance responses and levels were monitored; then they were interviewed. Before the second argument, children were given the perceived choice of watching an intense or mild angry exchange. Individual differences in responding to the angry interactions were found. Both (a) children with relatively higher externalizing behavior problems and (b) boys who chose to watch intense anger had lower tonic heart rates; 80% of boys with externalizing problems chose to watch intense anger. Further, children who chose to watch intense anger (a) exhibited lower declines in heart rates upon the presentation of the argument, (b) perceived the actors as more angry, and (c) reported lower amounts of distress during the argument than those who chose mild anger.     

Gender Rules: Same- and Cross-Gender Friendships Norms

We examined the relationships between gender and attitudes towards same- and cross-gender friendship norms for a sample of 269 West Coast, U.S., college students. Participants evaluated violations of friendship norms described in vignettes in which the friend’s gender was experimentally manipulated. Women differentiated more between types of violations in their evaluations than did men. There also were several significant gender differences in approval of norm violations. As expected, women tended to have relatively high expectations of their friendships in situations involving trust and intimacy, likely resulting from the high value they placed on affiliation and emotional closeness. Women were more disapproving than men of a friend who canceled plans or failed to come to their defense publicly. Men and women judged a woman who betrayed a secret more harshly than a man. Generally, expectations for cross-gender, versus same-gender, friends were more similar than different; there were no significant cross-gender interactions, with one exception. Men were particularly less approving of a male, as compared to a female, friend who kissed them in a greeting. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of respondents (81.6%) reported that men and women can be friends. A minority of women were cautious in their responses, with women (18.5%) more apt to reply “maybe,” than men (9.9%). Overall, these findings provided evidence that gender, rather than cross-gender, norms primarily influenced friendship evaluations, and demonstrated that even a subtle manipulation of gender can trigger gender stereotypes. They suggested, too, that women may hold their friends to stricter “rules” than men.     

Being angry for different reasons: the role of personality in distributive justice

The present research examines personality predictors of anger in response to unfavorable and favorable outcomes with regard to violations of the distributive justice principle of equality. Two studies showed that feelings of anger in response to equality violations were related to neuroticism and agreeableness, albeit for different reasons. Depending on whether the equality violation was favorable or not, anger could be predicted by either feelings of threat or guilt for neuroticism and perceptions of responsibility for agreeableness. These findings add to the literature on boundary conditions of justice and reveal how core personality dimensions contribute to emotional reactions in distributively unjust situations, even if the outcome is personally favorable.     

“Normally I’d get really agitated,but I just laughed!”: what do participants reflect upon in a transactional analysis/mindfulness based anger management programme?

ABSTRACT

Most anger management group programmes utilise Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and Mindfulness Based Treatments (MBTs) in their interventions. This study uses Transactional Analysis (TA) and mindfulness to help promote behavioural change. We explored participants' phenomenological change throughout a 10-week anger management programme. The research examines participants' weekly “check-ins” as they reflected on their angry behaviours, their interpersonal relationships and the development of mindfulness techniques as a way to regulate their angry emotions. The research suggests participants engage in a group learning process of sharing their angry behaviours, reflecting upon the taught content of the programme before acting to change their behaviour, utilising the group for encouragement and support.