Attitudes toward emotions

The present work outlines a theory of attitudes toward emotions, provides a measure of attitudes toward emotions, and then tests several predictions concerning relationships between attitudes toward specific emotions and emotional situation selection, emotional traits, emotional reactivity, and emotion regulation. The present conceptualization of individual differences in attitudes toward emotions focuses on specific emotions and presents data indicating that 5 emotions (anger, sadness, joy, fear, and disgust) load on 5 separate attitude factors (Study 1). Attitudes toward emotions predicted emotional situation selection (Study 2). Moreover, attitudes toward approach emotions (e.g., anger, joy) correlated directly with the associated trait emotions, whereas attitudes toward withdrawal emotions (fear, disgust) correlated inversely with associated trait emotions (Study 3). Similar results occurred when attitudes toward emotions were used to predict state emotional reactivity (Study 4). Finally, attitudes toward emotions predicted specific forms of emotion regulation (Study 5).     

The effects of collective anger and fear on policy support in response to terrorist attacks

ABSTRACT

Both correlational and experimental studies examined how perceived emotional responses of the majority of Americans to 9/11 affect individuals’ support for government counter-terrorism policies (i.e., military intervention, anti-immigration, restricting civil liberties). Study 1 found associations between perceived collective emotions (i.e., anger, fear) and individuals’ own corresponding emotions and those between perceived collective anger and counter-terrorism policy support. Individuals’ own anger mediated the associations of collective anger with policy support. Using experimental manipulations, Study 2 showed that collective anger had a significant effect on individuals’ own anger and one significant and two marginal effects on counter-terrorism policy support. Individuals’ own anger mediated one of the marginal effects of collective anger on policy support. Implications of these findings are discussed in the context of terrorist threat.     

Discrete emotions linking abusive supervision to employee intention and behavior

Drawing on appraisal theories of discrete emotions, we propose and test a model in which abusive supervision directed toward oneself and toward work unit peers (coworker abusive supervision) are interactively related to generalized feelings of shame, anger, and fear. These discrete emotions, in turn, tend to precipitate distinct responses that do not directly target the supervisor. We tested our hypotheses with a three-wave, time-lagged survey of 285 full-time workers from 55 work units. Consistent with our theorizing, supervisory abuse was associated with stronger feelings of shame while at work when the abusive supervision reported by one's coworkers was lower (vs. higher), whereas abuse had a stronger association with anger when coworkers also perceived relatively high levels of abuse. The distinct action tendencies associated with shame and anger are related to employees engaging in less voice behavior and more interpersonal deviance, respectively, and fear is related to higher turnover intentions. We discuss the study's implications for theory development concerning abusive supervision.     

The Role of Anger in the Biased Assimilation of Political Information

Political psychologists have established that politically motivated reasoning is a common phenomenon; however, the field knows comparatively less about the psychological mechanisms that drive it. Drawing on advances in the understanding of the relevance of emotion to political reasoning and behavior, we argue that anger likely plays a major role in motivating individuals to engage in the biased assimilation of political information—an evaluative bias in favor of information that bolsters one's views and against information that undercuts them. We test this proposition with two online studies, the second of which includes a quasi‐representative sample of Americans. The studies support our expectations. Individuals felt more negative emotions toward arguments that undermined their attitudes and positive emotions toward arguments that confirmed them; however, anger was nearly alone in fueling biased reactions to issue arguments.     

What does it mean to be angry at yourself? Categories, appraisals, and the problem of language

According to appraisal theorists, anger involves a negative event, usually blocking a goal, caused by another person. Critics argue that other-agency is unnecessary, since people can be angry at themselves, and thus that appraisal theory is wrong about anger. In two studies, we compared anger, self-anger, shame, and guilt, and found that self-anger shared some appraisals, action tendencies, and associated emotions with anger, others with shame and guilt. Self-anger was not simply anger with a different agency appraisal. Anger, shame, and guilt almost always involved other people, but almost half of the occurrences of self-anger were solitary. We discuss the incompatibility of appraisal theories with any strict categorical view of emotions, and the inadequacy of emotion words to capture emotional experience.     

Anger toward God: social-cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer

A recent model of collective action distinguishes 2 distinct pathways: an emotional pathway whereby anger in response to injustice motivates action and an efficacy pathway where the belief that issues can be solved collectively increases the likelihood that group members take action (van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Research supporting this model has, however, focused entirely on relatively normative actions such as participating in demonstrations. We argue that the relations between emotions, efficacy, and action differ for more extreme, nonnormative actions and propose (a) that nonnormative actions are often driven by a sense of low efficacy and (b) that contempt, which, unlike anger, entails psychological distancing and a lack of reconciliatory intentions, predicts nonnormative action. These ideas were tested in 3 survey studies examining student protests against tuition fees in Germany (N = 332), Indian Muslims' action support in relation to ingroup disadvantage (N = 156), and British Muslims' responses to British foreign policy (N = 466). Results were generally supportive of predictions and indicated that (a) anger was strongly related to normative action but overall unrelated or less strongly related to nonnormative action, (b) contempt was either unrelated or negatively related to normative action but significantly positively predicted nonnormative action, and (c) efficacy was positively related to normative action and negatively related to nonnormative action. The implications of these findings for understanding and dealing with extreme intergroup phenomena such as terrorism are discussed.     

Americans respond politically to 9/11: understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath

The 9/11 terrorist attacks have had profound effect on U.S. domestic and foreign security policy, leading to several expensive wars and the erosion of civil liberties (under the USA PATRIOT Act). We review evidence on political reactions to the 9/11 attacks and conclude that subjective reactions to terrorism played an important role in shaping support for national security policy in the wake of 9/11. Support for a strong national security policy was most pronounced among Americans who perceived the nation as at threat from terrorism and felt angry at terrorists. In contrast, Americans who were personally affected by the attacks were more likely to feel anxious about terrorism, and this anxiety translated into less support for overseas military action. In addition, Americans who felt insecure after the 9/11 attacks and perceived a high future threat of terrorism were more likely than others to support strong foreign and domestic national security policies. Overall, research on American political reactions to 9/11 suggests that support for a strong government response to terrorism is most likely when members of a population perceive a high risk of future terrorism and feel angry at terrorists.     

Negative Emotions Felt During Trial: the Effect of Fear,Anger, and Sadness on Juror Decision Making

During trial, jurors may experience a variety of emotions, many of which are negative. The current study examined the effects the negative emotions anger, fear, and sadness had on jurors' sentencing decisions and explored whether the cognitive appraisal theory or the intuitive prosecutor model could explain these effects. Jurors viewed the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial and were asked to sentence the defendant. Results indicated that after viewing the trial, jurors reported increased anger and sadness, but not fear. However, only change in anger affected jurors' sentences. Jurors who reported a greater change in anger were more likely to sentence the defendant to death. This effect was mediated by the level of importance that jurors placed on the prosecution's evidence and argument. Consistent with the intuitive prosecutor model, increased anger led to higher ratings of the importance of the aggravating evidence and an increase in death sentences. Implications are discussed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Toward an Integrative Perspective on Distinct Positive Emotions for Political Action: Analyzing,Comparing, Evaluating,and Synthesizing Three Theoretical Perspectives

Which emotions explain why people engage in political action (e.g., voting, protesting)? To answer this question, theory and research in psychology and political science predominantly focused on distinct negative emotions such as anger. The current article conceptually explores the motivational potential of distinct positive emotions by developing an integrative perspective that specifies which positive emotions can be differentiated (i.e., their form), which function these emotions have, and which implications these have for explaining political action. To this end, I analyze, compare, evaluate, and synthesize three approaches to positive emotions (affective intelligence theory, appraisal theories of emotion, and broaden-and-build theory). This perspective generates new hypotheses for the field to test, including the role played by distinct positive emotions such as joy, inspiration, interest, hope, and pride in motivating political action. I discuss how this perspective may help restore a balance in research on emotions and political action by focusing on the motivational potential of distinct positive emotions.     

Intergroup emotions: explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context

Three studies tested the idea that when social identity is salient, group-based appraisals elicit specific emotions and action tendencies toward out-groups. Participants' group memberships were made salient and the collective support apparently enjoyed by the in-group was measured or manipulated. The authors then measured anger and fear (Studies 1 and 2) and anger and contempt (Study 3), as well as the desire to move against or away from the out-group. Intergroup anger was distinct from intergroup fear, and the inclination to act against the out-group was distinct from the tendency to move away from it. Participants who perceived the in-group as strong were more likely to experience anger toward the out-group and to desire to take action against it. The effects of perceived in-group strength on offensive action tendencies were mediated by anger.     

The aftermath of destruction: Images of destroyed buildings increase support for war,dogmatism, and death thought accessibility

Building on terror management theory, we hypothesized that viewing destroyed buildings would increase death thought accessibility and thereby elicit dogmatic belief and hostile worldview defenses. In Study 1, images of destroyed buildings and deadly terrorist attacks elicited greater death-thought accessibility than images of construction sites or intact buildings. Images of destruction also enhanced dogmatic belief (Study 2) and support for military action against Iran (Study 3). Study 4 found that heightened death thought accessibility, but not the accessibility of thoughts of war or national identity, statistically mediated the relationship between visible destruction and worldview defense. Further, although destruction images increased dogmatism, political orientation was not affected by the destruction manipulation nor was political orientation related to death-thought accessibility. Overall, these findings suggest that visibly destroyed infrastructure can motivate increased certainty of beliefs and support for military aggression (e.g., war and/or terrorism) against groups perceived to be threatening to one's worldview.     

The Formation of Attitudes Toward New Immigrant Groups1

People often receive information about new immigrant groups prior to any direct contact with group members. However, it is not clear how this information shapes attitudes toward the groups. To explore this issue, 204 subjects were told about an unknown immigrant group that was presented as high or low in personal relevance. Subjects were then given positive or negative consensus information about the emotions that group members elicit from others, group members' personality traits, and group members' values. As expected, results indicated that the presentation of positive information about emotional reactions, personality traits, and values caused attitudes to be more favorable than did the presentation of negative information. Importantly, however, the combined impact of the emotion and personality trait information depended on whether the group was perceived to be of high or low personal relevance. Specifically, when the information about emotions and personality traits was similarly valanced (i.e., both were positive or both were negative), attitudes toward the group tended to be less favorable in the high personal relevance condition than in the low personal relevance condition. In contrast, when mixed information was presented (i.e., positive emotions and negative personality traits or negative emotions and positive personality traits), attitudes tended to be more favorable in the high personal relevance condition. In addition, attitudes, once formed, predicted further perceptions of the group and behavioral intentions toward group members. The implications of the findings for the reduction of prejudice toward new immigrant groups are discussed.     

Motivated to confront: How experiencing anger affects anchoring bias

Prior research has asserted that emotions affect anchoring bias in decision making through the emotion's certainty appraisal or through the emotion's action tendencies, but these prior studies investigate the role of each component—appraisal or action tendency—without accounting for potential effects of the other one. The current research investigates whether anger exerts a significant effect on anchoring bias by activating a desire to confront a potential anchor. Importantly, the studies compare the effect of anger versus disgust, emotions that differ in their action tendency but are similar in their certainty appraisal. In Study 1, participants completed an emotion induction task and then a negotiation task where the first offer from the negotiation partner served as a potential anchor. Anger led to more deviation from the anchor compared with disgust or neutral feelings. Subsequent studies provide evidence that the angry participants are less anchored when the anchor value comes from a more confrontable source (someone else vs. themselves in Study 2 and an out‐group member vs. an in‐group member in Study 3).     

Appraisal components,core relational themes,and the emotions

Abstract

This study experimentally tests the contributions of specific appraisals, considered at both molecular (appraisal components) and molar (core relational themes) levels of analysis, to the experience of four emotions (anger, guilt, fear/anxiety, and sadness) using a two-stage directed imagery task. In Stage 1, subjects imagined themselves in scenarios designed to evoke appraisals hypothesised to produce either anger or sadness. In Stage 2, the scenarios unfolded in time to produce a second manipulation designed to systematically evoke the appraisals hypothesised to produce each of the four emotions under study. The results provided substantial support for the theoretically specified appraisal-emotion relationships for anger, guilt, and fear/ anxiety. However, support for the predictions for sadness was weaker, partially due to ineffective manipulation of the relevant appraisals. Implications for the further development and testing of emotion theory are discussed.     

Gender,sex roles,and attitudes toward war and nuclear weapons

The observation that men are usually more supportive of war than women had led several authors to suggest that masculinity plays a causal role in the decision to make war and stockpile nuclear arms. In order to examine the relationship between sex role orientation and attitudes towards war and nuclear weapons, gender and measures of sex role orientation were used to predict three attitudes about nuclear weapons and the use of military force. Two specific and two classes of hypotheses regarding the possible relationships among these variables were tested: masculinity, femininity, Masculinity × Femininity interaction, and Gender × Sex Role Orientation hypotheses. The results provided limited support only for the femininity hypothesis—that attitudes toward war are associated with feminine traits. However, neither masculinity nor femininity was found to be the only mediators of the gender/war attitude relationship, indicating that sex role orientation (and especially masculinity) should be given less emphasis when trying to explain the relationship between gender and attitudes toward war.The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful comments of Douglas Kenrick, Nancy Russo, and an anonymous reviewer on a earlier version of this paper.     

Coupling and decoupling of unfairness and anger in ultimatum bargaining

Although previous research has demonstrated the importance of emotions in ultimatum bargaining, this research provides a more direct, convergent test of the role of anger in explaining rejections of unfair offers in ultimatum bargaining. First, using appraisal theory of emotions, this research examines the extent to which the cognitive appraisal of unfairness leads to the emotion of anger, which in turn, drives punitive behavior (i.e., rejection of offers). Second, this research explores the possibility of decoupling the emotion of anger from its antecedent appraisal of unfairness in order to attenuate responders' inclination to reject unfair offers. Third, following the current research tradition that goes beyond a valence‐based approach, we differentiate between the negative emotions of anger and sadness and examine whether it is the specific emotion of anger that is relevant to the cognitive appraisal of unfairness or the general negative valence of the emotion. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Understanding the power of the picture: the effect of image content on emotional and political responses to terrorism

Viewing images of terrorism can have a powerful impact on individuals' emotional and political responses, yet little is known about the psychological processes underlying these effects. We hypothesized that the content of terrorism images will shape viewers' appraisals of the event, which will elicit specific emotions and political attitudes. British citizens viewed photographs of the 2005 London bombings, either focusing on victims or terrorists. Exposure to images of victims increased appraisals of victim suffering, which predicted feelings of sympathy. Exposure to images of terrorists increased appraisals of terrorists as dangerous, which predicted fear; and of the attack as unjust, which predicted anger. Each emotion predicted support for a distinct counterterrorism policy. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Another Search for the “Hot” Cognitions: Appraisal, Irrational Beliefs, Attributions, and Their Relation to Emotion

One study examined the hypothesized status of appraisal and irrational beliefs relative to attributions, as proximal antecedents of emotion. In our study, which looked at 4 pairs of functional and dysfunctional negative emotions (i.e., concern/anxiety, sadness/depression, remorse/guilt, annoyance/anger), undergraduates (N = 120) reported on their attributions, appraisal, irrational beliefs, and emotions during past encounters associated with various negative events. Congruent with both Smith and Lazarus' (1993) appraisal theory and Ellis' (1994) cognitive theory of emotion, the results of this study indicate that the emotions (both functional and dysfunctional negative emotions) were more directly associated with appraisal and with irrational beliefs (dysfunctional negative emotions only) than they were with attributions. Also, irrational beliefs were strongly associated with appraisal; while demandingness (DEM) was associated more with primary appraisal, awfulizing/catastrophizing, low frustration tolerance, and global evaluation of human worth (including self-downing) were associated more with secondary appraisal. Dysfunctional emotions seem to involve primary appraisal associated with DEM while functional emotions involve primary appraisal associated with preferences. These findings lend to support the status of appraisal and irrational beliefs as the proximal cognitive antecedents of emotion and the status of irrational beliefs as a differencing factor between functional and dysfunctional emotions.     

The role of authoritarianism, perceived threat, and need for closure or structure in predicting post-9/11 attitudes and beliefs

The authors examined relationships among authoritarianism, personal need for closure or structure, perceived threat, and post-9/11 attitudes and beliefs. Participants were 159 undergraduate students in the Southeastern United States. The authors collected data 1 week before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Correlation and regression analyses revealed that right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were significant predictors of support for restricting human rights during the U.S.-led War on Terror, support for U.S. President George W. Bush, and support for U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Right-wing authoritarianism and perceived threat emerged as the strongest predictors of the belief that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism.     

Testing the limits of tolerance: how intergroup anxiety amplifies negative and offensive responses to out-group-initiated contact

Three studies examine the amplifying effects of intergroup anxiety on individuals' negative and offensive responses to out-group-initiated contact. Because intergroup anxiety typically results in avoidance of the initiation of intergroup contact, these studies explored how intergroup anxiety affected individuals' interpretation of and responses to out-group-initiated contact. The authors hypothesized that intergroup anxiety amplifies individuals' threat appraisal of out-group-initiated contact as well as their feelings of anger and offensive action tendencies toward the out-group. Results showed consistent support for these hypotheses by demonstrating that intergroup anxiety amplified individuals' threat appraisal (Studies 2 and 3), anger (Studies 1-3), and offensive action tendencies toward the out-group (Study 2). Anger consistently predicted offensive action tendencies (Studies 2-3). Thus, intergroup anxiety decreased individuals' limits of tolerance by increasing their threat appraisal of out-group-initiated contact. The results are discussed in relation to theories of threat, emotion, and tolerance.