Untitled

Doherty, R. William

doi:10.1023/a:1022368805803

Cited by 46 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4. Although females are often thought to be more prone to affect contagion than males, research shows that gender differences in susceptibility to affect contagion are observed when retrospective self-reports are used (e.g., Doherty, 1997;Doherty, Orimoto, Singelis, Hebb, & Hatfield, 1995;Lundqvist, 2006), whereas when data are collected experimentally these differences disappear (e.g., Doherty, 1998;Lundqvist & Dimberg, 1995;Neumann & Strack, 2000;Wild, Erb, & Bartels, 2001). This suggests that, despite males' and females' declarations, both sexes may be equally prone to affect contagion (Wild et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I can see that you’re happy but you’re not my friend

Wróbel

2017

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current study, I experimentally examined whether close relationship between a sender displaying affect and a receiver observing it fosters concordant affective reactions to the sender’s emotional displays. I recruited participants as pairs of either friends or strangers. One person served as a sender and the other person served as a receiver. The sender watched a happy or sad videotaped man, whereas the receiver observed him/her on the computer screen in a separate room. The results confirmed that the sender caught happiness displayed by the videotaped man and then passed it along to the receiver but only when the pair consisted of friends. When the pair consisted of strangers, this “second-hand” happiness contagion was blocked. The spread of sadness, however, remained unaffected by relationship closeness. This effect was not driven by the receiver’s ability to correctly decode the sender’s emotional expression.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I can see that you’re happy but you’re not my friend

Wróbel

2017

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People whose subjective emotional experience is influenced by facial feedback are more sensitive to emotional contagion (Doherty, 1997(Doherty, , 1998Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1992, 1994 and are more empathic (Andréasson & Dimberg, 2008). Individuals with psychiatric disorders have been found to be affected differently by their body cues compared to healthy subjects (Flack, Laird, & Cavallaro, 1999a;Stel, van den Heuvel, & Smeets, 2008).…”

Section: Body and Facial Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional Regulation Impairments Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: An Investigation of the Body and Facial Feedback Effects

Dethier

Blairy

Rosenberg

et al. 2013

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The object of this study was to evaluate the combined effect of body and facial feedback in adults who had suffered from a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) to gain some understanding of their difficulties in the regulation of negative emotions. Twenty-four participants with TBI and 28 control participants adopted facial expressions and body postures according to specific instructions and maintained these positions for 10 s. Expressions and postures entailed anger, sadness, and happiness as well as a neutral (baseline) condition. After each expression/posture manipulation, participants evaluated their subjective emotional state (including cheerfulness, sadness, and irritation). TBI participants were globally less responsive to the effects of body and facial feedback than control participants, F(1,50) = 5.89, p = .02, η(2) = .11. More interestingly, the TBI group differed from the Control group across emotions, F(8,400) = 2.51, p = .01, η(2) = .05. Specifically, participants with TBI were responsive to happy but not to negative expression/posture manipulations whereas control participants were responsive to happy, angry, and sad expression/posture manipulations. In conclusion, TBI appears to impair the ability to recognize both the physical configuration of a negative emotion and its associated subjective feeling.

show abstract

“…Emotional contagion refers to people "catching" each other's emotions through a rapid process in which perceivers perceive and interpret the displayers' emotions and respond with similar emotions themselves (Hatfield et al, 1994). Emotional contagion has been shown to influence the perceiver's thoughts and subsequent behaviors across a range of domains, from social judgments (Doherty, 1998), to evaluations of service quality in customer interactions (Pugh, 2001), to group negotiation outcomes (Barsade, 2002).…”

Section: How Emotional Transitions Influence Social Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding emotional transitions: The interpersonal consequences of changing emotions in negotiations.

Filipowicz

Barsade

Melwani

2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the interpersonal functions of emotions has focused primarily on steady-state emotion rather than on emotional transitions, the movement between emotion states. The authors examined the influence of emotional transitions on social interactions and found that emotional transitions led to consistently different outcomes than their corresponding steady-state emotions. Across 2 computer-mediated negotiations and a face-to-face negotiation, participants negotiating with partners who displayed a "becoming angry" (happy to angry) emotional transition accepted worse negotiation outcomes yet formed better relational impressions of their partners than participants negotiating with partners who displayed steady-state anger. This relationship was mediated through 2 mechanisms: attributional and emotional contagion processes. The "becoming happy" (angry to happy) emotional transition as compared with steady-state happiness was not significantly related to differences in negotiation outcomes but was significantly related to differences in relational impressions, where perceivers of the "becoming happy" emotional transition gave their partners lower relational impression ratings than perceivers of steady-state happiness.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 46 publications

References 53 publications

I can see that you’re happy but you’re not my friend

I can see that you’re happy but you’re not my friend

Emotional Regulation Impairments Following Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: An Investigation of the Body and Facial Feedback Effects

Understanding emotional transitions: The interpersonal consequences of changing emotions in negotiations.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About