The relativity of time perception produced by facial emotion stimuli

Insults elicit intense emotion. This study tests the hypothesis that one's social image, which is especially salient in honour cultures, influences the way in which one reacts to an insult. Seventy-seven honour-oriented and 72 non-honour oriented participants answered questions about a recent insult episode. Participants experienced both anger and shame in reaction to the insult. However, these emotions resulted in different behaviours. Anger led to verbal attack (i.e., criticising, insulting in return) among all participants. This relationship was explained by participants’ motivation to punish the wrongdoer. Shame, on the other hand, was moderated by honour. Shame led to verbal disapproval of the wrongdoers behaviour, but only among the honour-oriented participants. This relationship was explained by these participants’ motivation to protect their social image. By contrast, shame led to withdrawal among non-honour-oriented participants.     

Guilt and regret: The determining role of interpersonal and intrapersonal harm

The purpose of the present research was to examine which types of harm play a determining role in experiences of guilt and regret. In two studies it is shown that guilt results from interpersonal harm and regret from harm to oneself. Moreover, the second study showed that guilt generally increases as a function of the level of negative interpersonal consequences of one's behaviour. It was also demonstrated that regret increased as a function of the level of negative intrapersonal consequences but not as a function of the level of negative interpersonal consequences. Results are discussed in terms of theoretical dimensions underlying experiences of guilt and regret.     

The self‐regulatory role of anticipated group‐based shame and guilt in inhibiting in‐group favoritism

In three studies, we examined whether the anticipation of group‐based guilt and shame inhibits in‐group favoritism. In Studies 1 and 2, anticipated group‐based shame negatively predicted in‐group favoritism; in neither study did anticipated group‐based guilt uniquely predict in‐group favoritism. In Study 3, we orthogonally manipulated anticipated group‐based shame and guilt. Here, we found that the shame (but not the guilt) manipulation had a significant inhibitory effect on in‐group favoritism. Anticipated group‐based shame (but not guilt) promotes egalitarian intergroup behavior. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating,confirming, or changing social reality

We describe our motivational analysis of ingroup bias. Central to our approach are two functions of ingroup bias: an identity function (the creation and expression of one's social identity) and an instrumental function (the facilitation of intergroup competition and social change). We present a research programme on the determinants of these two functions in which we have focused on socio-structural factors (group status and status stability), psychological factors (group identification and threat), and strategic considerations concerning the audience to which ingroup bias is communicated. In addition, we relate the different functions of ingroup bias to different forms of ingroup bias (symbolic versus material forms of ingroup bias; ingroup favouritism versus outgroup derogation). Our conclusions centre on the social and diverse nature of motivations underlying ingroup bias, and the integration of identity and instrumental perspectives on this phenomenon.     

Social influences on the emotion process

Philosophical and psychological theory has traditionally focused on intra-individual processes that are entailed in emotions. Recently sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and also social psychologists have drawn attention to the interpersonal nature of emotions. In this chapter we focus on the influence of others on emotional experiences and expressions. We summarise research on social context effects which shows that both emotional expression and experience are affected by the presence and expressiveness of other people. These effects are most straightforward for positive emotions, which are enhanced in the company of others. In the case of negative emotions, the effects of social context depend on the circumstances in which the emotion is elicited, and on the role of other persons in this situation. We discuss these social context effects in the light of a more general theoretical framework of social appraisal processes.     

Causal and moral responsibility: Antecedents and consequences of group‐based guilt

In six studies (N = 1045) conducted in three European countries, we demonstrate distinctions between causal responsibility, group‐based guilt, and moral responsibility. We propose that causal responsibility is an antecedent of group‐based guilt linking the ingroup to previous transgressions against the victim group. In contrast, moral responsibility is a consequence of group‐based guilt and is conceptualized as a sociomoral norm to respond to the consequences of the ingroup's transgressions and the current needs of the victim group. As such, moral responsibility can be stimulated by group‐based guilt and directly predicts individual action intentions. Studies 1 and 2 focus on the conceptual distinctions among the three constructs. Study 3 tests the indirect effect of causal responsibility on moral responsibility via group‐based guilt. The remaining studies explore the mediating role of moral responsibility in associations between group‐based guilt and compensatory action tendencies, that is, financial compensation (study 4), approach and avoidance tendencies (study 5) and public apology (study 6). Together these studies show that causal and moral responsibility are psychologically distinct concepts from group‐based guilt and that moral responsibility plays an important role in shaping the effects of group‐based guilt on behavioral intentions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The benefits of a critical stance: a reflection on past papers on the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour

In this paper, I reflect on past papers published in the British Journal of Social Psychology (BJSP) that have played a role in the development of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). I focus on seven papers that fall into five categories: (1) those that critique the TRA/TPB for taking insufficient account of social factors; (2) those that critique the models on the grounds that many social behaviours are 'habitual'; (3) those that critically examine the construct of perceived behavioural control; (4) those that argue for the importance of affective factors, which appear to be overlooked in the TRA/TPB; and (5) those that argue for the importance of studying the role of moderating factors and interaction effects in the TRA/TPB. I conclude that BJSP's traditional focus on criticism and theory development is one that benefits the journal and the field.     

Social context effects on facial activity in a negative emotional setting

Evidence for A. J. Fridlund's (e.g.. 1994) "behavioral ecology view" of human facial expression comes primarily from studies of smiling in response to positive emotional stimuli. Smiling may be a special case because it clearly can, and often does serve merely communicative functions. The present experiment was designated (a) to assess the generalizability of social context effects to facial expressions in response to negative emotional stimuli and (b) to examine whether these effects are mediated by social motives, as suggested by the behavioral ecology view. Pairs of friends or strangers viewed film clips that elicited different degrees of sad affect, in either the same or a different room; a control group participated alone. Dependent variables included facial activity, subjective emotion, and social motives. Displays of sadness were influenced by stimulus intensity and were lower in all social conditions than in the alone condition. Unexpectedly, social context effects were also found for smiling.     

Supplication and appeasement in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt, and regret

This study examined the social effects of emotions related to supplication and appeasement in conflict and negotiation. In a computer-simulated negotiation, participants in Experiment 1 were confronted with a disappointed or worried opponent (supplication), with a guilty or regretful opponent (appeasement), or with a nonemotional opponent (control). Compared with controls, participants conceded more when the other experienced supplication emotions and conceded less when the other experienced appeasement emotions (especially guilt). Experiment 2 replicated the effects of disappointment and guilt and showed that they are moderated by the perceiver's dispositional trust: Negotiators high in trust conceded more to a disappointed counterpart than to a happy one, but those with low trust were unaffected. In Experiment 3, trust was manipulated through information about the other's personality (cooperative vs. competitive), and a similar moderation was obtained.