Courtney Stahl Under the direction of Dr. Leslie Kirby & Dr. Craig Smith Vanderbilt University April 16, 2010

Overview Goal of Research: Test the Process Model of Appraisal Question: Experimentally, can we selectively activate appraisals of self and other accountability through the use of selected songs playing in the background while participants work on an unrelated task? Background of Appraisal theory, relevant research Methods Results Discussion

Appraisal Theory Structural Model If known how a person evaluates the environment in a particular situation, can predict emotional reaction Primary Appraisal Importance (Relevance) Motivational Congruence (Desirability) Secondary Appraisal Accountability Self vs. Other Credit vs. Blame Coping Potential Future Expectancy

Criticism of Structural Model Doesnt explain the mechanisms by which these cognitions are generated Suggests appraisal is deliberate and slow Contradicts notion that emotions can be elicited quickly with minimum cognitive effort

Process Model of Appraisal Process model developed to fill gaps Specifies cognitive routes by which appraisals are generated Associative Processing Priming & activation of memories Quickly and outside of awareness Reasoning Deliberate thinking, uses content of focal awareness

Priming Appraisals Test process model Prime appraisals of motivational relevance, coping potential, and accountability to influence emotional reactions and emotion-related behaviors Success Provides theoretical support for a causal role for appraisal in emotion elicitation

Relevant Research Julie Crider, 2004 Participants primed with appraisals of high, low, or neutral coping potential using scrambled sentence task Given 2 math problems, 1 medium difficulty, 1 high difficulty Participants in high and low coping conditions more successful at medium problem than those in the neutral condition Participants in high coping potential reported reduced feelings of resignation and were more likely to solve the difficult math problem Can prime appraisals

Purpose & Overview Goal: Prime appraisals of negative self and other accountability to influence emotion and emotion-related behavior Causal role of appraisals 3 conditions: Anger playlist (other accountability), Guilt/Shame playlist (self accountability), or neutral (no music) Timed tinker toy task with confederate (expected failure) Completed questionnaires Ex: Neutral vignettes– show movement in appraisals of accountability

Hypothesis Self Accountability, blame Guilt/Shame Other Accountability, blame Anger

Pilot Study 1- Songs Over 200 songs: Anger (other-blame), Guilt/Shame (self-blame), Gratitude (other-credit), Pride (self- credit), General Positive, General Negative 30 second clips-- Narrowed down to top 20 for each song Top 20 embedded into survey Appraisal ratings by 62 Vanderbilt Undergraduates Top 10 on final song list, focused on accountability ratings

Anger Playlist (Other accountability, blame) Because of You – Kelly Clarkson Look What Youve Done – Jet You Give Love a Bad Name – Bon Jovi You Oughta Know – Alanis Morisette Father of Mine – Everclear Ive Come to Expect it from you – George Strait Before He Cheats – Carrie Underwood Complicated – Avril Lavigne Apologize – Timbaland Torn – Natalie Imbruglia

Guilt/Shame Playlist (Self accountability, blame) Shame – Avett Brothers Sorry – Buckcherry Hard to Say Im Sorry – Chicago Cold – Crossfade Unfaithful – Rihanna Confessions Pt. II – Usher Last Name – Carrie Underwood Nobodys Fault But My Own – Beck Blame it on me – Akon Whatever It Takes – Lifehouse

Pilot Study 2- Vignettes Created 32 neutral vignettes, positive and negative sides of 16 situations 119 Vanderbilt Undergraduates rated appraisals of self, other, and chance accountability Selected top 6 most neutral positive and negative vignettes Negative Example: You and your teammate are in a rowing race and get last place.

Pilot Study 3- Building Task Needed to determine amount of time for task 4 pairs of male friends, Vanderbilt undergraduates Instructed to complete tinker toy model as fast as possible Average time: 6 minutes, 5 seconds Give participants 5 minutes in study

Tank Model

Participants & Design Participants: 45 Vanderbilt Undergraduates (33 female, 12 male) 3 conditions: Anger (other accountability, 11 female, 4 male), Guilt/shame (self accountability, 12 female, 3 male), Neutral (no music, 10 female, 5 male) Paired with a lab confederate Confederate is neutral

Measures Emotion Ratings Mad, angry, irate Appraisal Ratings To what extent do you think that YOU are responsible for your team's performance? Impression Ratings Ex: Rude, friendly, attractive Positive, negative, and attractive scales for self and partner Vignette Ratings 12 situations with neutral accountability Standard appraisal questions Ex: I am responsible for whats going on.

Procedure Played music prior to participants arrival Introduction/Cover story Completed emotion ratings for baseline measure 5 minute building task (failed) Completed emotion ratings, appraisal ratings, impression ratings, and vignette ratings Debriefed and dismissed

Emotion Ratings ANCOVA, pre-task emotion ratings as covariate Show change in emotion Hypothesis: Elevated ratings of guilt and shame for participants in the self accountability condition and elevated ratings of anger for those in the other accountability condition

Emotion Ratings

Appraisal Ratings ANOVA Examine participants assessment of accountability for teams performance (failure) Hypothesis Guilt/Shame condition- blame selves Anger condition- blame confederate

Appraisal Ratings

Impression Ratings Positive impressions scale, negative impressions scale, & perceived attractiveness scale ANOVA Hypothesis Guilt/shame condition- Rate partner more positively than self Anger condition- More positive self ratings and lower other ratings

Impression Ratings **Positive Impression Scale (self)- Participants in the neutral condition felt more positively about themselves (M=7.023) than participants in the guilt/shame condition (M=6.723) who were blaming themselves for their failure

Vignette Ratings ANOVA Hypothesis Guilt/shame condition- Rate themselves as more accountable in negative scenarios Anger condition- Rate other person as more responsible

Vignette Ratings

Trends- Appraisals of Accountability To what extent do you think that YOU are responsible for your team's performance? Mean for neutral higher than anger, lower than guilt/shame, as expected Anger M=5.530, Guilt/Shame M=6.200, Neutral M=5.600 Participants in the guilt/shame condition blamed themselves more for the failure than those in the anger condition.

Trends- Negative Vignettes Participants in Guilt/Shame condition rated themselves as more accountable than those in Anger condition Anger M= 6.222, Guilt/Shame M= 6.522

Limitations & Future Directions Sample Size Increase sample size to increase power Not adequate exposure to music Filler task Not motivationally relevant for participants Increase relevance, more incentive Misinterpretation of question Who do you think is the MOST responsible for your teams performance?

Limitations & Future Directions Interpersonal task overwhelmed priming Griner & Smith, 2000 Anger manipulation caused absence of significant effects Need to test just music as primer Positive appraisals of self and other accountability Pride, Gratitude Finish model Other methods to prime accountability

Acknowledgements Dr. Leslie Kirby Dr. Craig Smith Laura Fritzsche Jenn Bauman Smith/Kirby lab members