The Impact of Affect on Out-Group Judgments Depends on Dominant Information-Processing Styles:Evidence From Incidental and Integral Affect Paradigms

Two studies tested the affect-as-cognitive-feedback model, in which positive and negative affective states are not uniquely associated with particular processing styles, but rather serve as feedback about currently accessible processing styles. The studies extend existing work by investigating (a) both incidental and integral affect, (b) out-group judgments, and (c) downstream consequences. We manipulated processing styles and either incidental (Study 1) or integral (Study 2) affect and measured perceptions of out-group homogeneity. Positive (relative to negative) affect increased out-group homogeneity judgments when global processing was primed, but under local priming, the effect reversed (Studies 1 and 2). A similar interactive effect emerged on attributions, which had downstream consequences for behavioral intentions (Study 2). These results demonstrate that both incidental and integral affect do not directly produce specific processing styles, but rather influence thinking by providing feedback about currently accessible processing styles

The distinct associations of ingroup attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic: Evidence from a multilevel investigation in 21 countries

While public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic transcend national borders, practical efforts to combat them are often instantiated at the national level. Thus, national group identities may play key roles in shaping compliance with and support for preventative measures (e.g., hygiene and lockdowns). Using data from 25,159 participants across representative samples from 21 nations, we investigated how different modalities of ingroup identification (attachment and glorification) are linked with reactions to the coronavirus pandemic (compliance and support for lockdown restrictions). We also examined the extent to which the associations of attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic are mediated through trust in information about the coronavirus pandemic from scientific and government sources. Multilevel models suggested that attachment, but not glorification, was associated with increased trust in science and compliance with federal COVID-19 guidelines. However, while both attachment and glorification were associated with trust in government and support for lockdown restrictions, glorification was more strongly associated with trust in government information than attachment. These results suggest that both attachment and glorification can be useful for promoting public health, although glorification's role, while potentially stronger, is restricted to pathways through trust in government information

Emotion Regulation Compensation Following Situation Selection Failure

Abstract We conducted two within-subjects experiments to determine whether people use alternative emotion regulation (ER) strategies to compensate for failure of situation selection, a form of ER in which one chooses situations based on the emotions those situations afford. Participants viewed negative and neutral (Study 1, N = 58) or negative, neutral, and positive pictures (Study 2, N = 90). They indicated for each picture whether they wanted to terminate presentation (Study 1) or view it again (Study 2). We manipulated the outcome of this decision to be congruent with participants’ wishes (success) or not (failure), and measured self-reported ER strategies and emotional responses. Although participants terminated negative situations more often than neutral situations (Study 1), or chose to view positive pictures more frequently than neutral, and neutral more frequently than negative (Study 2), there was little evidence of compensation in the wake of situation selection failure. Overall, we conclude that although people choose situations based on affect (i.e., attempt to end or avoid high-arousal negative situations and pursue high-arousal pleasant ones), they do not generally use the alternative ER strategies that we assessed (rumination, reappraisal, distraction) to compensate when the situations they select fail to materialize in this experimental context

The regulatory effect of choice in Situation Selection reduces experiential, exocrine and respiratory arousal for negative emotional stimulations

Abstract Situation selection is a seldom studied emotion regulation strategy that entails choosing an upcoming emotional situation. Two mechanisms may drive its regulatory effect on emotional responses. One relates to the evaluation of the chosen option, people generally selecting the most positive. The other one implies that having the choice regarding the upcoming emotional situation is already regulatory, independently of what we choose. This research aimed at investigating this latter hypothesis. In a within-subject design, we compared emotional responses of 65 participants when they viewed negative and positive images they could select (use of Situation selection) vs. when they were imposed the exact same images (Situation selection not used). Results show that having the choice in negative contexts decreased negative experience, skin conductance, and respiration reactivity, while enhancing expressivity and cardiovascular reactivity. In positive contexts, choosing generally reinforced the image calming effect. Thus, contrary to other strategies that are efficient for negative but usually impair positive reactions (e.g., distraction), Situation selection may be used widely to reduce negative experience, while avoiding depletion of positive responses. This is particularly notable in emotion experience. Remarkably, these effects are not driven by the content of the situations, but by the act of choosing itself