lecture+11+ +social+aspects+of+emotion
TRANSCRIPT
PSYCHOLOGY OF EMOTION: SOCIAL ASPECTS OF EMOTION
Wesley G. Moons, Ph.D.
University of California, Davis
Department of Psychology
SOCIAL SOURCES OF EMOTION ¢ Interaction with present others can:
� Make us angry � Disgust us � Amuse us
¢ Interaction with imagined/internalized others � Fear of a bully � Ashamed of disappointing others � Comforting memories of old friend
INTERACTION WITH PRESENT OTHERS
¢ Mimicry � Much nonverbal information
¢ Body posture ¢ Mannerisms ¢ Speech
¢ Rate of speech ¢ Volume ¢ Accents
¢ General benefits of mimicry � Increases liking by mimicked person
¢ Other associated things: persuasiveness, compliance � Exceptions to the rule:
¢ Being mimicked is outside our awareness ¢ Not all forms of mimicry work the same way…
POSTURE MIMICRY
¢ Posture conveys information: � Lower dominance
¢ Constrictive posture – people take up less space
� Higher dominance ¢ Expansive posture - people take up more space
¢ Tiedens and Fragale (2003) � Examined interpersonal interactions
¢ Real participant and a confederate interacted
� Confederate acted in scripted way: ¢ Mimicked posture of participant
¢ (Dominant-Dominant; Submissive-Submissive) ¢ Or complemented posture of participant
¢ (Dominant-Submissive; Submissive- Dominant)
POSTURAL MIMICRY RESULTS ¢ Complementary position elicited more favorable
reaction in real participant � More liking of confederate � More comfortable feeling during interaction
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.5
4.7
4.9
Participant Dominant
Participant Submissive
Lik
ing
of
Co
nfe
der
ate
Confederate Dominant
Confederate Submissive
EMOTIONAL MIMICRY
¢ Emotional expressions also mimicked � Display emotions other person displaying � Mimicry causes feeling emotion in self
¢ Why mimic? � Mirror neurons � Facilitate social interactions � Empathy
¢ Social contagion of emotion � One person’s emotion can be contagious � Good or bad mood can “infect” a group
¢ Explained through mimicry processes
IMPORTANCE OF GROUPS
¢ Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991) � People have two primary but conflicting motivations
¢ Affiliation (the desire to belong) ¢ Distinctiveness (the desire to stand out)
¢ Groups satisfy both these motives � Groups satisfy affiliation motivation
¢ Belonging with other members of groups
� Groups satisfy distinctiveness motivation ¢ Distinguish our ingroups from outgroups
¢ Groups provide “optimal” level of distinctiveness
HOW DO YOU FEEL RIGHT NOW
¢ Enthusiastic ¢ Interested ¢ Determined ¢ Excited ¢ Inspired ¢ Alert ¢ Active ¢ Strong ¢ Proud ¢ Attentive
¢ Scared ¢ Afraid ¢ Upset ¢ Distressed ¢ Jittery ¢ Nervous ¢ Ashamed ¢ Guilty ¢ Irritable ¢ Hostile
1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much
INTERACTION WITH IMAGINED OTHERS ¢ Self-categorization Theory
� People view themselves as group members � Think of themselves in group terms
¢ Self-stereotyping � Applying prototypical characteristics of group to self
¢ Both negative and positive characteristics
� Satisfies affiliation motive ¢ Increased by more identification with group ¢ All kinds of groups (e.g., sex, race, fabricated)
INTERGROUP EMOTION THEORY (MACKIE & SMITH)
¢ Group membership shapes emotional experiences � Group-based appraisals
¢ We see and evaluate the world through a group “lens” ¢ Group memberships influences what information comes to
mind
� Group-based emotions ¢ We respond emotionally as members of our group ¢ Even when other members are not around
¢ Study: 1. Individual-level emotions
¢ “As an individual, to what extent do you feel…” 2. One group-level emotions
¢ e.g., “As an American, to what extent do you feel…” 3. Different group-level emotions (e.g., as student)
� Results ¢ Group emotion profiles were all distinct from each other ¢ Consistent shift across participants for each group emotion
profile
SOURCE OF GROUP-BASED EMOTION
¢ How do people get these group-based emotions? ¢ Moons, Leonard, Mackie & Smith (2009)
¢ Self-stereotyping of emotion study 1: 1. Participants reported emotions as individuals 2. Reported emotions as Americans 3. Emotion stereotype presented
¢ Americans feel very low (extremely high) ¢ Levels of anger (fear)
4. Participants reported emotions as Americans again 5. Reported emotions as individuals again
SELF-STEREOTYPING OF EMOTION RESULTS ¢ Evidence of “Emotion Specificity”
� Specific emotion only ¢ Reported anger was ONLY affected by anger stereotype
¢ NOT fear stereotype ¢ Reported fear was only affected by fear stereotype
¢ NOT anger stereotype
� Group-based emotions only ¢ Emotion group stereotypes only affected reported group emotions
¢ NOT emotions reported as an individual
REPORTED ANGER ONLY
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Anger Stereotype Fear Stereotype
Rep
ort
ed G
rou
p-B
ase
d A
ng
er
Low Level
High Level
REPORTED FEAR ONLY
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Anger Stereotype Fear Stereotype
Rep
ort
ed G
rou
p-B
ase
d F
ear
Low Level
High Level
EMOTION SELF-STEREOTYPING (IS THIS “REAL”?)
¢ Study 2 Method 1. Reported identification as women 2. Presented anger stereotype (for women) 3. Completed risk-taking task 4. Reported emotions as women 5. Reported emotions as individuals
¢ Study 2 Results � Risk-taking influenced by anger stereotype
¢ Without first reporting emotion � Post-stereotype emotions associated with risk judgments
¢ Group-based anger associated with risk-taking ¢ Individual anger did not predict risk-taking
� Effect depended on level of identification with group ¢ More identification increased impact of anger stereotype
STEREOTYPE CONTENT MODEL (FISKE, CUDDY, GLICK, & XU, 2002)
¢ Outgroups perceived and evaluated on two independent dimensions: 1. Warmth 2. Competence
EMOTIONS TO OUTGROUP MEMBERS (FISKE, CUDDY, GLICK, & XU, 2002)
¢ Outgroups perceived and evaluated on two independent dimensions: 1. Warmth 2. Competence
¢ This forms 4 general quadrants � Warm and competent � Warm and incompetent � Cold and competent � Cold and incompetent
¢ Groups from each quadrant elicit specific emotional reaction in perceivers
� Warm and competent: Admiration � Warm and incompetent: Pity � Cold and competent: Envy � Cold and incompetent: Contempt