Constraints for emotion specificity in fear and anger: The context counts

Stemmler, Gerhard; Heldmann, Marcus; Pauls, Cornelia A.; SCHERER, THOMAS

doi:10.1017/s0048577201991668

Cited by 54 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The following order of effects was devised: (a) the average of rest periods acting as a covariate to adjust for initial differences in the dependent variables, (b) emotion effect, (c) anxiety effect, (d) Anxiety × Emotion effect, (e) defensiveness effect, (f) Defensiveness × Emotion effect, (g) Anxiety × Defensiveness effect, and (h) Anxiety × Defensiveness × Emotion effect. This order of effects permitted 3 All periods are described in Stemmler et al (2001). Standard tests (white noise, handgrip, and exercise task, altogether 10 periods) were not chosen as baseline in this report because we decided to contrast a rest period with the induction period, as it has been done in several other studies concerning repressive coping and defensiveness (e.g., Barger et al, 1997;Shapiro et al, 1995;Tomaka et al, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, selecting other periods than the 10-min rest period would have decreased the reliability of baseline scores. The second fear induction period described by Stemmler et al (2001) was omitted because it was designed to induce fear of physical harm and therefore differed psychologically from the other three induction periods that were conceived to induce fear of social evaluation. 4 As described in Stemmler et al (2001), ANCOVA permits conditional statements about treatment effects for random pretreatment group differences in response level reactivity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Repressive and defensive coping during fear and anger.

Pauls

Stemmler

2003

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the relationship between repressive and defensive coping styles and somatovisceral responses as well as emotion self-reports were investigated in 2 situational contexts conceived to induce fear and anger. Anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; L. Laux, P. Glanzmann, P. Schaffner, & C. D. Spielberger, 1981) × Defensiveness (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale; D. P. Crowne & D. Marlowe, 1960) × Emotion (fear, anger) moderated regression analyses revealed that compared with baseline during fear, defensiveness was related to a decrease in heart rate variability. Also during fear, repressive-defensive copers had lower self-reports of negative affect but showed higher behavioral negative affect (m. corrugator reactivity) than other participants. During anger, defensiveness was positively related to both diastolic blood pressure reactivity and m. zygomaticus reactivity. Additional analyses showed that emotional responses of repressivedefensive copers were strongly moderated by the situational context.The history of the repressive-defensive coping style began with the development of the Byrne Repression-Sensitization scale (see Bell & Byrne, 1978). This measure evolved from the perceptual defense literature (e.g., Eriksen, 1966) in which repressors were defined as individuals who have heightened recognition thresholds for anxiety-provoking stimuli. But soon it emerged that the Byrne scale had limited discriminant validity because of its high correlation with trait anxiety measures (e.g., Weinberger, Schwartz, & Davidson, 1979).The repressive coping research progressed with the development of the Marlowe-Crowne (MC) Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) that was originally constructed for the assessment of so-cially desirable responding as a response style. Within 4 years, however, Crowne and Marlowe (1964) recognized that their scale was primarily measuring a substantive individual difference dimension rather than a response bias. Since that time, a formidable body of research has demonstrated that high-MC scorers generally believe what they are reporting and attempt to behave accordingly (e.g., Derakshan & Eysenck, 1999;McCrae & Costa, 1983). However, this insight does not rule out that high-MC scorers can also exaggerate, cheat, and lie, if necessary, to ensure that others recognize their good character or to avoid social disapproval (e.g., Millham, 1974;Paulhus & John, 1998).The core motive behind the excessively agreeable and conforming behavior of high-MC scorers seems to be the maintenance of an idealized self-concept, particularly by the defensive avoidance of negative affect such as anxiety or anger (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964, pp. 150, 190) and the prevention of threat to self-esteem from anticipated social rejection (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repressive and defensive coping during fear and anger.

Pauls

Stemmler

2003

Emotion

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A variant of this technique, presenting participants with written scenarios with systematically varied content, has been used by cognitively oriented emotion researchers to test hypotheses about the specific appraisal components underlying particular emotions (see Scherer, 1988;Cornelius, 1996). Note, though, that physiological evidence suggests that states induced by imaging are substantially different from states induced by external events (Stemmler et al, 2001).…”

Section: Antecedent Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…''Stress'' is associated with cardiovascular changes that may be confounded with effects of emotion per se , but also more specifically with elevated serum cortisol and lowered salivary secretory immunoglobulin A levels (see Hucklebridge et al, 2000). A much wider range of measures is used by research that distinguishes within traditional categories: for instance, Stemmler et al (2001) consider 29.…”

Section: Physiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Describing the emotional states that are expressed in speech

Cowie

Cornelius

2003

Speech Communication

502

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To study relations between speech and emotion, it is necessary to have methods of describing emotion. Finding appropriate methods is not straightforward, and there are difficulties associated with the most familiar. The word emotion itself is problematic: a narrow sense is often seen as ''correct'', but it excludes what may be key areas in relation to speech--including states where emotion is present but not full-blown, and related states (e.g., arousal, attitude). Everyday emotion words form a rich descriptive system, but it is intractable because it involves so many categories, and the relationships among them are undefined. Several alternative types of description are available. Emotion-related biological changes are well documented, although reductionist conceptions of them are problematic. Psychology offers descriptive systems based on dimensions such as evaluation (positive or negative) and level of activation, or on logical elements that can be used to define an appraisal of the situation. Adequate descriptive systems need to recognise the importance of both time course and interactions involving multiple emotions and/or deliberate control. From these conceptions of emotion come various tools and techniques for describing particular episodes. Different tools and techniques are appropriate for different purposes.

show abstract

“…In Experiment 2, we sought to replicate Experiment 1 with men and modify the procedures to create a face-to-face interaction, which we reasoned would create more intense affective responses (Aronson, Wilson, & Brewer, 1998;Stemmler, Heldmann, Pauls, & Scherer, 2001). The major change to the procedure in Experiment 2 was that during both the speech and word-finding task, we used video cameras and monitors to allow the dyad to see and hear each other during both tasks (as opposed to merely hearing each other during the word task).…”

Section: Experiments 2: Men-high and Low Ses And Ethnicitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners.

Mendes

Blascovich

Hunter

et al. 2007

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

298

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals who violate expectations increase uncertainty during social interactions. Three experiments explored whether expectancy-violating partners engender "threat" responses in perceivers. Participants interacted with confederates who violated or confirmed expectations while multiple measures were assessed, including cardiovascular reactivity, task performance, appraisals, and behavior. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants interacted with White or Latino confederates who described their family backgrounds as either high or low socioeconomic status. In Experiment 3, participants interacted with Asian or White confederates who spoke with expected accents or southern accents. Participants interacting with expectancy-violating partners (e.g., Asians with southern accents) exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with threat, poorer task performance, and manifested negative and defeat-related behavior. Implications for decreasing prejudicial responses via uncertainty reduction are discussed.Keywords: uncertainty, expectancy violations, cardiovascular reactivity, challenge and threat Interacting with strangers can be stressful. During such interactions, individuals are simultaneously attending to their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, including self-presentational, self-regulatory, and impression management concerns, as well as trying to accurately perceive the characteristics of the person to establish conversational fluency, expectations, and social norms (DePaulo & Friedman, 1998;Gilbert, 1998;Gudykunst, 1984). To the extent that the stranger meets expectations, the interaction is likely to be routinized and predictable. However, when the stranger is unexpected or surprising in some way, routinized responses are likely to be disrupted and anxiety heightened (Hebl, Tickle, & Heatherton, 2000). In the present study, we tested the notion that expectancy violations engendered by interaction partners would create more situational uncertainty and increase psychological threat as marked cardiovascularly, affectively, and behaviorally.We have previously observed that, in general, African Americans relative to European Americans engendered threat responses among White participants during a pleasant social interaction. More important, the degree of past intergroup contact with African Americans reported by White participants moderated responses, such that the greater the contact with African Americans the lower the threat responses. This finding underscores the importance of contact during social interactions. But what about situations in which one could not have experienced contact because the stranger is surprising or unexpected in some way, that is, a stranger who violates expectancies?Expectancies function to help people predict the future on the basis of past experiences and knowledge (Olson, Roese, & Zanna, 1996). Hence, expectancy violations disrupt one's predictive ability and can create uncertainty. This uncertainty is likely to increase the demands of situations, diverting attentional resources away...

show abstract

Constraints for emotion specificity in fear and anger: The context counts

Cited by 54 publications

References 0 publications

Repressive and defensive coping during fear and anger.

Repressive and defensive coping during fear and anger.

Describing the emotional states that are expressed in speech

Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About