Reactions to Crime Victims: Effects of Victims' Emotional State and Type of Relationship

Yee, Jennifer L.; Greenberg, Martin S.

doi:10.1521/jscp.1998.17.2.209

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sadness, for instance, increases perceptions of neediness and dependency (Clark & Taraban, 1991) and both worry and fear communicate a need for assistance Eisenberg, 2000;Kennedy-Moore & Watson, 2001;Yee & Greenberg, 1998). Such signals are functional in that they can trigger helping and support from observers (Clark et al, 1996).…”

Section: Emotions As Social Information 18mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Expressions of sadness (e.g., crying) and worry increase perceptions of neediness and dependency (Clark & Taraban, 1991) and evoke helping behavior in both children (Barnett, Howard, Melton, & Dino, 1982) and adults (Clark, Oullette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987;Labott, Martin, Eason, & Berkey, 1991;Yee & Greenberg, 1998) compassionately and supportively to their partner's distress than did those who were less motivated to befriend their partner. Interestingly, individuals who relayed a story of suffering to a conversation partner who was motivated to invest emotionally in the conversation experienced more trust and understanding than did those whose partner was not so motivated, indicating that supportive responses to another's suffering contribute to the quality of cooperative interpersonal relationships.…”

Section: Signs Of Supplication (Eg Sadness Distress Disappointmementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Interpersonal Approach to Emotion in Social Decision Making

Kleef

Dreu

Manstead

2010

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

442

602

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social decisions are heavily influenced by emotion. For decades, the dominant research paradigm has been characterized by a focus on the decision maker's own positive or negative mood. We argue that a full understanding of the role of emotion in social decision making requires a complementary focus on interpersonal effects (i.e., the effects of one individual's emotions on the other's behavior); a focus on discrete emotions rather than general mood states; and a distinction between cooperative and competitive settings. To advance insight into these issues we present the Emotions as Social Information (EASI) model. The model is grounded in two basic assumptions, namely that individuals use others' emotions to make sense of ambiguous situations, and that the effects of others' emotions and the processes that drive them depend critically on the cooperative or competitive nature of the situation. A review of recent research supports our analysis. We demonstrate that the interpersonal effects of emotions are pervasive and can be better understood in terms of the unique social functions of each emotion than in terms of valence. Effects in cooperative settings are best explained in terms of affective reactions (i.e., emotional contagion, affect infusion, and mood management), whereas effects in competitive contexts are better understood in terms of the strategic inferences individuals draw from other's emotions. We close by discussing the implications of our model and highlighting avenues for future research. Emotions have long been regarded as disruptive forces that interfere with rational decision making. Increasingly, however, this view has given way to a functional perspective on emotions. Contemporary scholars share the idea that emotions signal the importance of events to relevant concerns, help prioritize goals, and generate a state of action readiness that prepares the individual to respond to changes in the environment (see e.g., Frijda, 1986). This not only applies to individual goals and actions but also, and perhaps especially, to social interaction and decision making -situations in which one's own behavior influences and is influenced by one or more others. Indeed, social interactions are among the most commonly reported antecedents of emotions (Anderson & Guerrero, 1998;Shaver, Wu, & Schwartz, 1992), and emotions have plenty of potential to shape behavior (Frijda, 1986;Manstead, 1991;Van Kleef, 2009).Although the last decades have witnessed a growing attention to the role of emotion in social decision making, we believe that this research has not done justice to the inherently social nature of emotion. The reason is that most research has addressed the intrapersonal Emotions as Social Information 4 effects of affective states (especially positive vs. negative moods), demonstrating that individuals' judgments and decisions are influenced by their mood state (e.g., Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999;Forgas, 1995;Isen, 1987;Schwarz, Bless, & Bohner, 1991;Wyer, Clore, & Isbell, 1999). Although much of this ...

show abstract

Section: Emotions As Social Information 18mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Signs Of Supplication (Eg Sadness Distress Disappointmementioning

confidence: 99%

An Interpersonal Approach to Emotion in Social Decision Making

Kleef

Dreu

Manstead

2010

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

442

602

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, having role models who help and witnessing others provide help in other situations can facilitate intervention~see Batson, 1998; Myers, 1999 for reviews!. In addition, perception of victim distress promotes interventioñ e.g., Yee & Greenberg, 1998!. Finally, some literature suggests that requests for help make it easier for bystanders to take a more active role~e.g., Shaffer, Rogel, & Hendrick, 1975!.…”

Section: Factors That Impact Bystander Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In situations where victims are seen as being to blame for their problems, help is less likely to be forthcoming~e.g., Brickman et al, 1982;Batson, 1998!. Researchers have also investigated factors such as the impact of the bystander's mood, sense of responsibility including nature of relationship to the person in need of help, locus of control, or esteem-orientation~see Dozier &Miceli, 1985 andMyers, 1999 for reviews;Huston, Ruggiero, Conner, & Geis, 1981;Michelini, Wilson, & Messe, 1975;Tice & Baumeister, 1985;Yee & Greenberg, 1998;Wispe, 1980!. Finally, some research suggests that skill level of bystanders is also important, with active bystanders more likely to have had previous training in emergency intervention or a strong sense of their own physical strength~e.g., Huston et al, 1981!. Bystander Education • Yet another group of studies focuses in more detail on the decision-making process for bystanders.…”

Section: Factors That Impact Bystander Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention

Banyard

Plante

Moynihan

2003

Journal Community Psychology

571

498

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other studies, however, suggest that expressions of happiness evoke exploitation, especially in competitive settings (for a review of this literature, see Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010). Furthermore, sad and fearful expressions have been found to increase affiliation and helping (Barnett, Howard, Melton, & Dino, 1982;Clark, Oullette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987;Clark & Taraban, 1991;Yee & Greenberg, 1998), especially in communal relationships (Clark et al, 1996). However, other research has shown that people tend to avoid interactions with (chronically) sad individuals when possible, because such interactions tend to be draining and not socially rewarding (e.g., Coyne, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional expressions as social signals of rejection and acceptance: Evidence from the Affect Misattribution Paradigm

Heerdink

Kleef

Homan

et al. 2015

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Happy expressions signal more acceptance than other emotional expressions.• Angry expressions signal more rejection than other negative emotional expressions.• The predicted associations are reliable at presentation times of only 50 ms.• Effects are consistent across three conceptualizations of acceptance and rejection.• These findings help explain consequences of expressed emotions in dyads and groups. a b s t r a c tInclusion in social groups is vital to human survival and wellbeing. We propose that emotional expressions signal acceptance versus rejection to observers. Based on this idea, we hypothesized that happy facial expressions prime acceptance, whereas angry expressions prime rejection. In six experiments using the Affect Misattribution Paradigm (Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), we tested to what extent observers associate facial expressions (angry, happy, sad, fearful, and neutral) with three different operationalizations of acceptance and rejection (accept/reject, warm/cold, close/distant). A meta-analysis on these experiments revealed that angry expressions were more strongly associated with rejection than other (negative) expressions, and that happy expressions were more strongly associated with acceptance than other facial expressions. Effects were stable and robust at presentation times of 50 ms and higher and were similar across conceptualizations of acceptance/rejection. We discuss implications for theorizing on the social functions of emotions and the processing of emotional expressions.

show abstract

Reactions to Crime Victims: Effects of Victims' Emotional State and Type of Relationship

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

An Interpersonal Approach to Emotion in Social Decision Making

An Interpersonal Approach to Emotion in Social Decision Making

Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention

Emotional expressions as social signals of rejection and acceptance: Evidence from the Affect Misattribution Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About