In a new study, Stanford psychologists examined why some people respond differently to an upsetting situation and learned that people’s motivations play an important role in how they react.
Their study found that when a person wanted to stay calm, they remained relatively unfazed by angry people, but if they wanted to feel angry, then they were highly influenced by angry people.
The researchers also discovered that people who wanted to feel angry also got more emotional when they learned that other people were just as upset as they were, according to the results from a series of laboratory experiments the researchers conducted.
Their findings, published June 13 in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, reveal that people have more control over how their emotions get influenced than previously realized, the researchers said.
“We have long known that people often try to regulate their emotions when they believe that they are unhelpful,” said James Gross, a professor of psychology at Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences.
“This set of studies extends this insight by showing that people can also regulate the way they are influenced by others’ emotions.”
How do other people influence emotions?
To learn how people react to upsetting situations and respond to others around them, the researchers examined people’s anger toward politically charged events in a series of laboratory studies with 107 participants.
The team also analyzed almost 19 million tweets in response to the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.
In the laboratory studies, the researchers showed participants images that could trigger upsetting emotions, for example, people burning the American flag and American soldiers abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The researchers also told participants how other people felt about these images.
The researchers found that participants who wanted to feel less angry were three times more likely to be more influenced by people expressing calm emotions than by angry people.
But participants who wanted to feel angry were also three times more likely to be influenced by other people angrier than them, as opposed to people with calmer emotions.
The researchers also found that these participants got more emotional when they learned that others also felt similar emotions to them.
“The degree to which people said they were motivated to feel or not feel certain emotions predicted how much they would be influenced when they were exposed to emotions from other group members,” said Amit Goldenberg, the lead author on the study and a Stanford doctoral candidate in psychology.
Emotional influence on social media
The researchers also looked at social media where they could see how emotions played out in real time.
They focused on the unrest that emerged on Twitter following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014.
After analyzing almost 19 million Twitter posts, the researchers found that Twitter users were more influenced by stronger emotions expressed by people in their social network compared to weaker and calmer reactions.
They also found that when Twitter users responded to tweets that were similar in emotional intensity to their earlier reactions, the users amplified their emotions to express stronger outrage than others in their social network.
“The social dimension of emotions, particularly in response to socio-political events, is becoming increasingly important with the use of social media and people’s constant exposure to the emotions of others in online platforms,” wrote the study’s authors, who also included Jamil Zaki, assistant professor of psychology, in the paper.
Emotions as tools
Researchers have largely assumed that people’s emotions get influenced automatically – in an unconscious, immediate response to other people’s emotions, said Goldenberg.
His team’s new research challenges that perspective, he said.
“Our emotions are not passive nor automatic,” Goldenberg said.
“They are a little bit of a tool.
We have the ability to use our emotions to achieve certain goals.
We express certain emotions to convince other people to join our collective cause.
On social media, we use emotions to signal to other people that we care about the issues of a group to make sure people know we’re a part of it.”
Further research needs to be done in order to understand the relationship between people and their emotions.
One of the next topics Goldenberg says he wants to examine further is whether the desire of people to want to see and experience certain emotions around them lies at the core of how they choose their network of friends and other people around them.
“It seems that the best way to regulate your emotions is to start with the selection of your environment,” Goldenberg said.
“If you don’t want to be angry today, one way to do that is to avoid angry people.
Do some people have an ingrained preference for stronger emotions than others? That’s one of my next questions.”
Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection
Interpersonal rejections constitute some of the most distressing and consequential events in people’s lives. Whether one considers a romantic rejection, the dissolution of a friendship, ostracism by a group, estrangement from family members, or merely being ignored or excluded in casual encounters, rejections have myriad emotional, psychological, and interpersonal consequences.
People not only react strongly when they perceive that others have rejected them, but a great deal of human behavior is influenced by the desire to avoid rejection.
This article begins with a brief primer on the adaptive significance of emotions and discusses the interpersonal functions of rejection-related emotions in particular.
It then examines specific emotions that are involved in the management of social acceptance and rejection—including hurt feelings, jealousy, loneliness, shame, guilt, social anxiety, and embarrassment—as well as others that often arise during rejection episodes, but that are not specific to rejection.Go to:
The adaptive significance of emotions
Since the publication of Darwin’s seminal book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,1 theorists have regarded emotions as evolved adaptations that provide an advantage to survival and reproduction.2,3
In particular, emotions signal the presence of events that have potentially major implications for an animal’s well-being—specifically, important threats and opportunities in its environment—thereby causing the individual to focus on concerns that require immediate attention.
Once aroused, emotions involve not only subjective feelings, but also a motivational readiness to respond in a particular fashion to the threat or opportunity (the emotion’s “action tendency”).
Some emotions also involve expressive movements that communicate the animal’s state to others and that lead conspecifics to respond in desired ways, as when an animal’s threatening stare frightens intruders out of its territory.
Many emotions can be precipitated by either impersonal or interpersonal events.
For example, people may become frightened, angry, or sad due to either impersonal acts of nature or the actions of other people.
Other emotions, however, are experienced only with respect to real, anticipated, remembered, or imagined encounters with other people.
For example, embarrassment, hurt feelings, and loneliness are inherently social emotions that involve threats and challenges that arise in interpersonal interactions and relationships.
We focus here specifically on emotions that are caused by the prospect or presence of rejection by other people.
The fact that rejection consistently evokes strong emotional reactions suggests that acceptance and rejection had important adaptive implications throughout human evolution that led to the promulgation of the genes of our hominid ancestors who experienced emotions in response to signs of rejection.
On the savannas of east Africa where most human evolution occurred, survival and reproduction depended heavily on living within a group that provided resources, protection against predators, and care for offspring.
Because individuals who lived within the protective confines of the group fared far better than those who did not, natural selection favored prehuman and human beings who formed and maintained supportive relationships with others.
As a result, a drive to form and maintain some minimum number of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships—a need for acceptance and belonging—evolved as a fundamental aspect of human nature.4
However, successfully living within a group requires that individuals be accepted (or at least tolerated) by other members of the group.
To remain in the good graces of other group members, people have to behave in ways that foster their acceptance by others, whether they are coalition members, friends, family members, mates, acquaintances, or whoever.
In addition, they need to be vigilant to indications of disapproval and devaluation, both to avoid behaving in ways that might lead to rejection and to address any problems that arise.
Because rejection had serious, potentially fatal, consequences in the ancestral environment, a person would have needed to avoid social exclusion and ostracism at nearly all costs and had to be attuned to cues indicating that his or her positive standing in other people’s eyes might be in jeopardy.
Thus, human beings developed bio-psychological mechanisms to apprise them of threats to acceptance and belonging, an emotional aversion to cues that connote rejection and exclusion, and motivational systems to deal with threats to acceptance.
This psychological system has been characterized as a “sociometer”5 that monitors the social environment for cues relevant to one’s relational value—the degree to which other people regard their relationship with the individual to be valuable or important.
Indications of low relational value can range from explicit indications of rejection, such as a romantic breakup or expulsion from a group, to subtle expressions of disinterest, disapproval, or dislike, such as low responsiveness, distant body language, and avoidance.
Perceiving that others do not adequately value one’s relationship triggers the sociometer and its concomitant emotional and motivational responses.
Even the possibility of relational devaluation can cause negative emotions, as does realizing that one may have behaved in ways that might lower one’s relational value and, thus, jeopardize one’s acceptance by others.
Neuroscientific investigations suggest that much of the activity of the sociometer is mediated by the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and anterior insula.
Among other functions, these neural regions are also associated with physical pain, which may help to explain why people report that they are “hurt” when others devalue or reject them.
Not only does rejection lead to increased activity in the dACC and anterior insula,6,7 but people who score high on measures of rejection sensitivity show greater activity in these areas in response to rejecting stimuli than people low in rejection sensitivity,8,9 and activity in these regions correlates with self-reported social distress in response to rejection.10–12
Interestingly, activity in these regions during rejection is also associated with changes in people’s feelings about themselves at the moment (ie, state self-esteem), which is consistently affected by rejection and may be an internal, psychological gauge of one’s relational value.13
A recent meta-analysis shows that the ventral and dACC are most consistently involved in reactions to rejection.14
Several specific emotions arise from the prospect or presence of rejection, including hurt feelings, loneliness, jealousy, guilt, shame, social anxiety, embarrassment, sadness, and anger.
However, as we will see, some of these emotions are elicited by perceived low relational value per se, whereas others are caused by other different features of the rejection episode.Go to:
In many ways, hurt feelings can be regarded as the “rejection emotion”17 in that people’s feelings are hurt by events that connote that other people do not regard their relationship with them to be as valuable or important as the individual desires, thereby leading them to feel rejected.
In a study of 168 hurtful episodes,18 all but two of the episodes appeared to be caused by participants’ perceptions that one or more other people did not sufficiently value their relationship.
Furthermore, participants’ ratings of how hurt they felt in the situation they recounted correlated highly with the degree to which they felt rejected.
Criticism was the most common cause of hurt feelings. Not only does criticism convey that another person thinks that one possesses negatively valued attributes, often with implications for one’s relational value and acceptance, but the simple action of voicing a criticism, even one that is justified, sometimes implies that the criticizer does not value his or her relationship with the target.
(People often refrain from strongly criticizing those they care about.) In addition, people in this study also reported being hurt by betrayal (which indicates that the betrayer does not adequately value his or her relationship with the betrayed person), passive disassociation (ignoring or avoiding the individual), and, of course, explicit rejection, exclusion, ostracism, and abandonment.
In brief, evidence shows that people’s feelings are hurt when they believe that others do not sufficiently value their relationship.17
People typically experience hurtful events as rejection, although people’s feelings can be hurt even when they know that other individuals accept or care about them at some level if they believe that the others do not value their relationship as much as they desire.Go to:
People feel jealous when they believe that another person values his or her relationship with them less than they desire because of the presence or intrusion of a third party. Although people usually think of jealousy in the context of romantic and sexual relationships,19 people may feel jealous whenever they believe that a third party has caused them to have lower-than-desired relational value to another person.
For example, children may be jealous of the attention that a parent devotes to a sibling, or an employee may feel jealous because the boss seems to favor another employee.
Jealousy is often accompanied by fear about the possibility of losing the relationship entirely and anger toward the relational partner and the rival.20
The action tendency associated with jealousy involves a motivation to eliminate the influence of the third party. Jealous people may try to increase their desirability (and, thus, their relational value and acceptance) to the target and/or diminish the third party’s influence by disparaging the rival to the target or threatening one or both of them.
Such behaviors appear intended to intimidate the partner into disassociating from the rival, but they may further reduce the jealous person’s relational value, undermine the relationship, and lead to explicit rejection.Go to:
Loneliness and homesickness
People experience loneliness and homesickness when they believe that people who greatly value their relationship are not available for social interaction and support. In some instances, people may not have a meaningful relationship with anyone, but at other times, the people who value and support them are simply not available to interact and offer their support.
Homesickness is characterized primarily by acute feelings of loneliness and sadness when one is not only separated from loved ones, but is also away from familiar circumstances.22
(In fact, homesickness is perhaps best regarded as a blend of loneliness and sadness rather than as a distinct emotion.)
Research shows that loneliness is linked to factors that cause a sense of having low relational value to other people.
Geographical relocation also causes loneliness by causing a loss of relationships in which people feel relationally valued.25
Loneliness is particularly common among people who have recently experienced bereavement, divorce, or the dissolution of a close relationship and who believe that other people do not regard them as desirable friends and partners.26
Not all loneliness arises from explicit rejection, but rejection is a common antecedent of loneliness.Go to:
Guilt and shame
Guilt and shame are typically conceptualized as reactions to moral or ethical violations (which they are), but they are tied closely to people’s concerns about relational value and rejection.
Indeed, these emotions may have evolved to manage situations in which one has violated group standards in ways that, if not remediated, might decrease one’s relational value, damage one’s relationships, and even result in social rejection or group expulsion.
Although the terms guilt and shame are often used interchangeably, they are psychologically different emotions: people feel guilty about engaging in a “bad” behavior, whereas they feel ashamed about being a “bad” person.27
Because being a bad person is generally worse than merely engaging in an undesirable behavior, shame is typically a more intense experience than guilt.
Most theorists have traced shame and guilt to violations of one’s personal standards.
However, guilt and shame appear to be inherently social emotions rather than merely reactions to violations of personal standards.28
(The fact that people can make us feel guilty or ashamed even when we believe we did nothing wrong demonstrates the centrality of interpersonal concerns in guilt and shame.)
Both guilt and shame arise in situations that have potential implications for people’s relational value to other people, but they arise in response to slightly different concerns.
When people believe that they have done something that might lead others to relationally devalue them—which is typically the case in instances in which they behave unethically or immorally—they feel guilty.
When they think that others’ judgments of them as a person, particularly judgments of their character, may lead to relational devaluation and possible rejection, they experience shame.
Of course, people sometimes experience guilt or shame even when no one else knows about their undesirable behaviors or thoughts.
In order to help people avoid rejection, the sociometer can trigger guilt and shame proactively to discourage them from doing things that, if later discovered by others, might lead to devaluation and rejection.
Guilt and shame are associated with different motivations or action tendencies.
Guilty people are motivated to repair the damage that their undesired behavior has caused.
They apologize, ask for forgiveness, engage in remedial behaviors and restitution, and take other steps to improve their social image and repair their interpersonal relationships.29
Social anxiety and embarrassment
Social anxiety—feelings of nervousness in social encounters—is an anticipatory response to the possibility of conveying undesired impressions of oneself that will lower one’s relational value in other people’s eyes.30
People realize that the degree to which others value and accept them as relational partners, group members, and social interactants depends heavily on how they are perceived.
For example, being viewed as attractive, competent, likeable, and ethical generally results in higher relational value than being viewed as unattractive, incompetent, unlikeable, or immoral.
Thus, when people believe that they might not make the impressions they desire to make in a particular situation (or, worse, believe that they will make undesired impressions), they experience social anxiety.
Social anxiety may have evolved as an “early warning system” that deterred people from behaving in ways that might compromise their social image and relational value.30
Embarrassment also involves a concern for how one is perceived by other people; however, whereas social anxiety is anticipatory in nature, embarrassment occurs when people think that they have already conveyed an undesired impression of themselves to others.31
Although people dislike appearing embarrassed, research shows that expressions of embarrassment after making an undesired impression help to improve people’s public image and relational value by indicating to others that they are aware of their undesired behavior and that they regret behaving in a socially undesirable or nonnormative fashion.32
Facial blushing often plays an important role in this process, conveying the person’s awareness that he or she has behaved unacceptably in an involuntary, nonverbal fashion that is impossible to fake.33
In many ways, human displays of embarrassment—which often include blushing, averted gaze, and mirthless smiling—are analogous to the appeasement displays of other primates when they have displeased a higher-ranking member of the group.33Go to:
Sadness and anger
Each of the emotions discussed thus far expressly involves events that have implications for people’s relational value and social relationships, and each appears designed to deter actions that might result in rejection or, if such actions have already occurred, to manage the interpersonal threat to one’s social connections.
However, people who feel rejected often experience other emotions that are not tied specifically to concerns with relational value per se, including sadness and anger. Neither sadness nor anger is caused by perceived low relational value.
Rather, sadness arises from perceived loss, and anger arises when people perceive that another agent (usually, but not always, a person) has unjustifiably behaved in an undesired fashion that threatens their desires or well-being.34
Although sadness can result from nonsocial losses—of a prized possession or a desired opportunity, for example—people also experience sadness when they lose an important interpersonal relationship.
For example, people become sad when loved ones move away, when relationships end, when they grow apart from friends, and when trusted others betray them.
In each instance, sadness is caused specifically by the loss of a valued connection to a particular person.
In fact, when asked to write about a typical instance in which people feel sad, roughly two thirds of the participants in one study wrote about the loss of a relationship or separation from a loved one, and a quarter of the participants wrote specifically about rejection.35
Even the sadness of bereavement may reflect, in part, the fact that one has lost an important relationship and source of relational value.
People may also experience sadness from the loss of a potential relationship, as when one’s affection for another person is not returned or a person is not accepted into a team or group that he or she desired to join.
Although sadness is obviously an aversive experience, the emotion may be functional in leading people to protect both their relationships and the people with whom they have those relationships.
Because lost relationships cause painful sadness, people are motivated to behave in ways that protect their relational value in the eyes of those with whom they desire to maintain close relationships.
In extreme cases, particularly momentous or prolonged rejection can contribute to depressive episodes.
Of course, depression has many causes, but ostracism, romantic breakups, and other forms of severe or chronic relational devaluation are common precipitators of depression in both adolescents and adults.
Not only does rejection contribute to depression,36 but also people who are already depressed are more sensitive to indications that others do not adequately value having relationships with them37 and have greater difficulty recovering from rejection.38
People also sometimes become angry when they feel rejected but, as with sadness, anger is not caused by perceived low relational value per se.
In some cases, people who feel rejected not only become angry, but also react aggressively. Indeed, anger may be designed to prevent, terminate, or punish specific behaviors that are perceived as an immediate threat.39
Jilted lovers sometimes lash out, domestic violence commonly erupts when people feel devalued by family members, and school shootings are usually perpetrated by students who feel ostracized by their peers.40 Whether people aggress when rejected depends on a number of factors; for example, aggression is more likely when people value the relationship, believe that the rejection was unfair, and believe that the relationship cannot be repaired.41
More information: Amit Goldenberg et al. Beyond emotional similarity: The role of situation-specific motives., Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (2019). DOI: 10.1037/xge0000625
Journal information: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Provided by Stanford University