1. Family context. a) Positive Disengaged

Transcription

1 Online Supplementary Materials for Emotion manuscript Emotions and Concerns: Situational Evidence for their Systematic Co-Occurrence. by Jozefien De Leersnyder, Peter Koval, Peter Kuppens, & Batja Mesquita Method: Prompts of the Emotional Pattern Questionnaire (De Leersnyder, Mesquita, & Kim, 011) used in Studies 1 and. After each prompt, we included the following request: Please describe the situation briefly. Provide as much detail as needed for somebody to understand why you felt that way in this situation. 1. Family context a) Positive Disengaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel good for themselves (for example, feel superior, proud, top of the world). Please think about an occasion at home or with your family in which you felt good for yourself (for example, feel superior, proud, top of the world). b) Positive Engaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel good about their relationships with others (for example, feel close, feel respect, friendly feelings, feel happy for another person). Please think about an occasion at home or with your family in which you felt good about your relationship with others (for example, feel close, feel respect, friendly feelings, feel happy for another person. c) Negative Disengaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel bad about things that happen to them personally (for example, angry, frustrated, sulky feeling, jealous). Please think about an occasion at home or with your family in which you felt bad about things that happened to you personally (for example, angry, frustrated, sulky feeling, jealous). d) Negative Engaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel bad about their relationships with others (for example, feel indebted, ashamed, guilty, sad or sorry for another, afraid of troubling another, feel awkward). Please think about an occasion at home or with your family in which you felt bad about your relationships with others (for example, indebted, ashamed, guilty, sad or sorry for another, afraid of troubling another, awkward).. Work context a) Positive Disengaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel good for themselves (for example, feel superior, proud, top of the world). Please think about an occasion at your school or work in which you felt good for yourself (for example, feel superior, proud, top of the world). 1

2 b) Positive Engaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel good about their relationships with others (for example, feel close, feel respect, friendly feelings, feel happy for another person). Please think about an occasion at your school or work in which you felt good about your relationship with others (for example, feel close, feel respect, friendly feelings, feel happy for another person. c) Negative Disengaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel bad about things that happen to them personally (for example, angry, frustrated, sulky feeling, jealous). Please think about an occasion at your school or work in which you felt bad about things that happened to you personally (for example, angry, frustrated, sulky feeling, jealous). d) Negative Engaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel bad about their relationships with others (for example, feel indebted, ashamed, guilty, sad or sorry for another, afraid of troubling another, feel awkward). Please think about an occasion at your school or work in which you felt bad about your relationships with others (for example, indebted, ashamed, guilty, sad or sorry for another, afraid of troubling another, awkward). 3. Friend context (Study only) a) Positive Disengaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel good for themselves (for example, feel superior, proud, top of the world). Please think about an occasion with friends in which you felt good for yourself (for example, feel superior, proud, top of the world). b) Positive Engaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel good about their relationships with others (for example, feel close, feel respect, friendly feelings, feel happy for another person). Please think about an occasion with friends in which you felt good about your relationship with others (for example, feel close, feel respect, friendly feelings, feel happy for another person. c) Negative Disengaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel bad about things that happen to them personally (for example, angry, frustrated, sulky feeling, jealous). Please think about an occasion with friends in which you felt bad about things that happened to you personally (for example, angry, frustrated, sulky feeling, jealous). d) Negative Engaged Sometimes, people find themselves in situations that make them feel bad about their relationships with others (for example, feel indebted, ashamed, guilty, sad or sorry for another, afraid of troubling another, feel awkward). Please think about an occasion with friends in which you felt bad about your relationships with others (for example, indebted, ashamed, guilty, sad or sorry for another, afraid of troubling another, awkward).

3 Mean relevance of values (0 = none; 1 = all) Additional Analyses Study 1 1 0,9 0,8 *** * 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0, 0,1 *** Disengaging emotions dominant Equal disengaging and engaging emotions Engaging emotions dominant 0 Self-focused values Other-focused values Figure A1. Relevance of self-focused values and other-focused values as a function of whether socially disengaging or engaging emotions are dominant or whether situations are socially ambiguous and thus characterized by equal intensity levels of disengaging and engaging emotions (Study 1). Results are obtained by conducting a MANOVA with the Relevance of self-focused and other-focused values as dependent variables and Situation Type as predictor, after controlling for Valence. This analysis yielded that there was a significant multivariate effect of Valence (Pillai s Trace =.036; F(,181) = 3.36; p =.037; η p =.036), and of Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.119; F(4,364) = 5.754; p ; η p =.059), but no multivariate interaction effect between Valence and Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.015; F4,364) =.667; p =.615; η p =.007). The graph represents the main effects of Situation Type on both dependent variables. *** p, ** p.01, * p.05, p =.07. 3

4 Table A1.1 Odds-ratio s for the relevance of each individual value (0 = not relevant; 1 = relevant) and the most intense type of emotions in the situation (0 = disengaging; 1 = engaging), based on the data of Study 1. Study 1: Belgian Students Oddsratio Sign. a Achievement Succeeding.198 p Capacity.38 p =.007 Benevolence Loyalty.333 p =.060 Helping others 3.06 p =.005 Self-direction Independence.746 p =.607 Own goals.5 p =.167 Tradition Tradition p =.900 Religion 1.01 p =.660 Note. Odds-ratio s below 1 indicate that it is more likely that the value will be relevant in disengaging emotional situations and not applicable in engaging emotional situations. Odds-ratio s above 1 indicate that it is more likely that the value will be relevant in engaging emotional situations and not applicable in disengaging emotional situations. 4

5 Table A1.. Results of multivariate regression analysis (using GLM procedure in SPSS) predicting the intensity of the four different emotion scales based on Valence, the Mean Relevance of Self-focused and Other-focused values, and the interaction between the two (Study 1). Positive Disengaging Positive Engaging Negative Disengaging Negative Engaging B SE p η p B SE p η p B SE p η p B SE p η p Intercept Valence Self-focused Other-focused Valence*Self-focused Valence*Other-focused Total R Note: This analysis yielded a significant multivariate effect for Valence (Pillai s Trace (4, 179) =.71, F = , p, η p =.71), the relevance of Other-focused values (Pillai s Trace (4, 179) =.113 F = 5.68, p, η p =.113) and their interaction (Pillai s Trace (4, 179) =.061, F =.908, p =.03, η p =.061). The multivariate effect of the relevance of Self-focused values was only marginally significant (Pillai s Trace (4, 179) =.044, F =.044, p =.090, η p =.044), while its interaction with Valence was not (Pillai s Trace (4, 179) =.036, F = 1.690, p =.154, η p =.036). The significance test for other multivariate statistics such as Wilk s Lambda, Hotelling s Trace and Roy s Largest Root, yielded the exact same results as those for Pillai s Trace. Valence = Dummy variable (0 = positive situation, 1 = negative situation). Self-focused = Mean Relevance Self-Focused values (VAS); Other-focused = Mean Relevance Other-Focused values (VAS). 5

6 Mean relevance of values (0 = none; 1 = all) Additional Analyses Study 1 0,9 0,8 *** * 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 *** ns Disengaging emotions dominant Equal disengaging and engaging emotions Engaging emotions dominant 0, 0,1 0 Self-focused values Other-focused values Figure A. Relevance of self-focused values and other-focused values as a function of whether socially disengaging or engaging emotions are dominant or whether situations are socially ambiguous and thus characterized by equal intensity levels of disengaging and engaging emotions (Study ). Results are obtained by conducting a single level MANOVA model with the Relevance of self-focused and other-focused values as dependent variables and Situation Type as predictor, after controlling for Valence and Culture. This analysis yielded that there was a significant multivariate effect of Valence (Pillai s Trace =.014; F(,1331) = 9.168; p ; η p =.014), Culture (Pillai s Trace =.011; F(,1331) = 7.66; p ; η p =.011), and of Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.076; F(4,670) = 6.488; p ; η p =.038), but no multivariate interaction effect between Valence and Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.005; F4,664 = 1.781; p =.1330; η p =.003) and between Culture and Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.000; F4,664) =.097; p =.983; η p =.000). The graph represents the main effects of Situation Type on both dependent variables. It is noteworthy that the main effect of Culture yielded that the Mean relevance of Self-focused values is higher among Belgian (M =.803) than among Turkish students (M =.755; Mean diff =.048, SE =.009, p =.001), whereas there is no cultural difference in the Mean relevance of Other-focused values. *** p, ** p.01, * p.05. 6

7 Table A.1 Odds-ratio s for the relevance of each individual value (0 = not relevant; 1 = relevant) and the most intense type of emotions in the situation (0 = disengaging; 1 = engaging), based on the data of Study. Study : Study : Belgian Students Turkish Students Oddsratio Sign. Odds- Sign. a ratio a Achievement Ambition.654 p = p =.389 Succeeding.404 p.670 p =.087 Capacity.59 p.619 p =.01 Benevolence Loyalty.09 p p Helping others.164 p = p =.004 Promise 3.97 p = p =.104 Self-direction Independence.377 p = p =.055 Own goals.669 p = p Freedom p = p =.015 Tradition Tradition p = p =.053 Religion p = p =.003 Note. Odds-ratio s below 1 indicate that it is more likely that the value will be relevant in disengaging emotional situations and not applicable in engaging emotional situations. Odds-ratio s above 1 indicate that it is more likely that the value will be relevant in engaging emotional situations and not applicable in disengaging emotional situations. 7

8 Table A. Results of Multilevel Binary Logistic Regression predicting the odds to experience Engaging emotions as dominant (Disengaging is reference category) from the Mean Relevance of Self-focused and Otherfocused values, Culture, and their interaction (Study ). Fixed Coefficients 95% CI for Exp(B) B SE T p Exp(B) Lower Upper Intercept = Self-focused Other-focused Culture = Culture*Self-focused Culture*Other-focused =.59 = Note: The model included a random intercept and had a -LL of , which is much worse than a single level model (see main text) or a model without Culture as predictor (-LL = ). The Link function in this model was a Logit function and the overall percentage of correct classifications was 65%. Overall fixed effects were significant for both the Relevance of Self-focused values (F(1,743) = 18.17, p.001) and Other-focused values (F(1,743) = , p.001), but not for Culture (F(1,743) = 1.37, p =.4) or the interactions between Culture on the one hand and Self-focused values (F(1,743) =.397, p =.59) or Other-focused values (F(1,743) =.958, p =.38) on the other hand. Turning this model around and predicting the odds to experience Disengaging emotions as dominant, yielded an Exp(B) of Self-focused values of (95% CI for Exp(B) = [.301, 9.513]). Culture = Dummy variable (0 = Belgian, 1 = Turkish). Self-focused = Mean Relevance Self-Focused values (VAS); Other-focused = Mean Relevance Other-Focused values (VAS). 8

9 Table A.3 Comparison of Deviances scores Multi-level Models Study. Belgian students - Log Likelihood 0-Model Model with Valence only versus 0-Model Model with Values only versus 0 Model Model with Valence, Values, interactions versus Valence Model Number of Parameters Positive Disengaging Positive Engaging Negative Disengaging Negative Engaging *** *** *** *** *** *** 7.97 * 7.87 * *** *** 8.36 *** 0.0 *** Turkish students - Log Likelihood 0-Model Model with Valence only versus 0-Model Model with Values only versus 0 Model Model with Valence, Values, interactions versus Valence Model *** *** *** *** *** *** 8.96 * *** *** *** ** 4.4 *** Note. The best model is indicated in bold. * p.05; ** p.01; *** p.005 9

10 Table A.4 Comparison of Deviances scores Multi-level Models Study. Both Cultures - Log Likelihood 0-Model Model with Valence only versus 0-Model Model with Values only versus 0 Model Model with Valence, Values, interactions versus Valence Model Model with Valence, Culture, Values, - way interactions Culture & Values versus Valence, Values, interactions Model Model with Valence, Culture, Values, all -way and 3-way interactions versus Valence, Culture, Values, -way interactions Culture & Values Model Number of Parameters Positive Disengaging Positive Engaging Negative Disengaging Negative Engaging , *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.86*** *** 85.9 *** 33.8 *** *** * 9.6* *** * 9.6* ** 10

11 Table A.5 Results of four multi-level analyses predicting the intensity of different emotion scales based on Valence only (Study ). Panel A: Belgian students Panel B: Turkish students Positive Disengaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Valence Intercept = Positive Engaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Valence Intercept = Negative Disengaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Valence Intercept Negative Engaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Valence Intercept = Note: Valence is a dummy variable coded as 0 = positive situation, 1 = negative situation. 11

12 Table A.6 Results of four multi-level analyses predicting the intensity of different emotion scales based on the Mean Relevance of Self-focused and Other-focused values only (Study ). Panel A: Belgian students Panel B: Turkish students Positive Disengaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Self-focused values Other-focused values = =.149 Intercept Positive Engaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Self-focused values = =.554 Other-focused values Intercept Negative Disengaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Self-focused values = =.068 Other-focused values = =.004 Intercept Negative Engaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Self-focused values = =.005 Other-focused values = Intercept Note. Hypothesized associations appear in bold. 1

13 Table A.7. Results of four multi-level analyses (combining the data of both cultures) predicting the intensity of different emotion scales based on the Valence of the situation and the Mean Relevance of Self-focused and Other-focused values (Study ). Both cultures together Positive Disengaging Positive Engaging Negative Disengaging Negative Engaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error p Estimate Std. Error p Estimate Std. Error p Estimate Std. Error p Positive Situation dummy Negative Situation dummy Pos_Sit*Self-focused values = Pos_Sit*Other-focused values = = Neg_Sit*Self-focused values = Neg_Sit*Other-focused values = = Intercept Note. In this model there is no fixed effect for the intercept and no main effects for the values; instead, each level of the categorical variable is represented by its own dummy variable (indicating the mean level of the DV in that type of situation) and each effect for the values is estimated for every level of the categorical variable separately (representing the simple slope of the effect in that type of situation). Self-focused values = Mean Relevance Self-focused values (VAS); Other-focused values = Mean Relevance Other-focused values (VAS). Hypothesized associations appear in bold. =.401 =.353 =

14 Table A.8 Results of four multi-level analyses (combining the data of both cultures) predicting the intensity of different emotion scales based on Valence, Culture,, the Mean Relevance of Self-focused and Other-focused values and their two- and three-way interactions (Study ). Positive Disengaging Positive Engaging Negative Disengaging Negative Engaging Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error p Estimate Std. Error p Estimate Std. Error p Estimate Std. Error p Intercept Valence Culture = = = =.368 Self-focused = = =.451 Other-focused = = =.801 Valence*Self-focused = = = =.005 Valence*Other-focused = = = Culture*Self-focused = = =.784 Culture*Other-focused = = = =.069 Valence*Culture = = = Valence*Culture*Self-focused = = = =.491 Valence*Culture*Other-focused = = = =.085 Intercept Note. Self-focused values = Mean Relevance Self-focused values (VAS); Other-focused values = Mean Relevance Other-focused values (VAS). Hypothesized associations in bold 14

15 Mean relevance of values (0 = none; 1 = all) Additional Analyses Study 3 1 0,9 0,8 ns ns *** *** 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 Disengaging emotions dominant Equal disengaging and engaging emotions Engaging emotions dominant 0, 0,1 0 Self-focused values Other-focused values Figure A3. Relevance of self-focused values and other-focused values as a function of whether socially disengaging or engaging emotions are dominant or whether situations are socially ambiguous and thus characterized by equal intensity levels of disengaging and engaging emotions (Study 3). Results are obtained by conducting a MANOVA with the Relevance of Self-focused and Otherfocused values as dependent variables and Situation Type as predictor, after controlling for whtehr there was a Positive versus Negative Event (Dummy variable: Positive Event = 0; Negative Event = 1). This analysis yielded that there was a significant multivariate effect of the Negative Event dummy (Pillai s Trace =.04; F(,758) = ; p ; η p =.04), and of Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.013; F(4,5518) = 8.717; p ; η p =.006), but no multivariate interaction effect between the Negative Event dummy and Situation Type (Pillai s Trace =.003; F4,5518) =.014; p =.090; η p =.001). The graph represents the main effects of Situation Type on both dependent variables. *** p. 15

16 Table A3.1 Results of Multilevel Binary Logistic Regression predicting the odds to experience Engaging emotions as dominant (Disengaging is reference category) from the Mean Relevance of Selffocused and Other-focused values, Culture, and their interaction (Study 3). Fixed Coefficients 95% CI for Exp(B) B SE T p Exp(B) Lower Upper Intercept Self-focused Other-focused = Note: Although this model (that included a random intercept) fitted the data worse ( ) than a single level model (see main text) or a multi-level 0-model (-LL = ); the overall percentage of correct classifications increased from 5 till 55%. The fixed effects of both the relevance of Self-focused (F(1,404) = 4.094, p =.043) and Other-focused (F(1,404) =.140, p.001) values were significantly associated with the likelihood to experience engaging emotions as dominant: Whereas the relevance of self-focused values decreased this likelihood, the situational relevance of Other-focused values increased this likelihood. Turning this model around and predicting the odds to experience Disengaging emotions as dominant, yielded an Exp(B) of Self-focused values of 1.30 (95% CI for Exp(B) = [1.006, 1.50]). Self-focused = Mean Relevance Self-Focused values (VAS); Other-focused = Mean Relevance Other-Focused values (VAS). 16

17 Table A3.. Comparison of Deviances scores Multi-level Models Study 3. - Log Likelihood 0-Model Model with Event types only versus 0-Model Model with Values only versus 0 Model Model with Event types, Values, interactions versus Event type Model Number of Parameters Positive Disengaging Positive Engaging Negative Disengaging Negative Engaging *** *** *** *** *** *** 6.67 * *** *** *** 9.84 a Note. The best model is indicated in bold. p =.13; * p.05; ** p.01; *** p.005 a In this model, fixed effects for self-focused values were not significant. When excluding the non-significant predictors from the model, the model with otherfocused values and its interactions with the types of event, fitted the data significantly better than a model with the types of events only. The estimations of the fixed effects were highly similar to those based on the full model. 17

18 Table A3.3 Results of four multi-level analyses predicting the intensity of different emotion scales based on the Type of Event only (Study 3). Positive Disengaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Positive Event dummy Negative Event dummy Intercept Positive Engaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Positive Event dummy Negative Event dummy Intercept Negative Disengaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Positive Event dummy Negative Event dummy Intercept Negative Engaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Positive Event dummy Negative Event dummy Intercept Note. The reference category is No Event. 18

19 Table A3.4. Results of four multi-level analyses predicting the intensity of different emotion scales based on the Mean Relevance of Self-focused and Other-focused values only (Study 3). Positive Disengaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Self-focused values Other-focused values Intercept Positive Engaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Self-focused values Other-focused values =.133 Intercept Negative Disengaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Self-focused values Other-focused values =.070 =.01 Intercept Negative Engaging Emotions Fixed effects Estimate Std. Error P Intercept Self-focused values Other-focused values =.76 =.171 Intercept Note. Self-focused values = Mean Relevance Self-focused values; Other-focused values = Mean Relevance Other-focused values. Hypothesized associations appear in bold. 19

20 Additional Analyses on to explain stronger associations between situationally relevant values and emotions in Studies 1 and versus Study 3 is there a difference in the links depending on whether people rely on episodic versus semantic information? The Dominance Test yielded stronger associations between situationally relevant values and emotions in Studies 1 and than in Study 3. This difference may be explained in light of Robinson and Clore s (00) theory stating that people are likely to access different sources of information depending on the format in which they report on their emotions: In experience sampling studies (like our Study 3), participants are likely to access experimental, episodic information to construe their feelings online; in retrospective self-report studies (like Studies 1 and ), however, they are likely to access semantic information, i.e., their beliefs about emotion. According to Robinson and Clore (00, p. 950), an episodic retrieval strategy is limited to time frames that are more narrow than last few weeks ; when reporting on episodes that occurred longer than a month ago, people are much more likely to rely on semantic information. Applying these ideas to our data, we revisited Studies 1 and in which we had asked our participants How long ago did the situation take place? In Study 1, answer options ranged from 1 (more than a year ago) to 6 (today), with 4 (this month, but not this week) being the crucial cutoff score distinguishing between episodic versus semantic reporting strategies. In Study, the scale ranged from 1-7 with an additional option at the lower end 1 (that long ago that I don t remember exactly) and with 5 now being the crucial cut-off score. Seventy-three percent of all situations in Study 1 and 56% of all situations in Study (44% of Belgian situations and 77% of Turkish situations) were scored above the respective cut-off scores and were thus likely to be based on episodic/feeling rather than semantic/belief information. To investigate whether the link between values and emotions is stronger when people rely on semantic than on episodic information which is what could be expected we reran the Dominance Test of Study (i.e. single-level binary logistic regression with both cultures in one analyses) for situations that occurred longer than a month ago (N = 341) and within the past few weeks (N = 394) separately. For situations that occurred longer than a month ago (semantic strategy), a model including the relevance of self-focused and other-focused variables fitted the data better than the 0-model (Drop in deviance χ() = , p ); the percentage of correct classifications went up from 64.5% to 71%. The main effects of the relevance of self-focused and other-focused values were statisticaly significant and in the expected direction, with self-focused values being negatively (B = ; SE =.431; Wald Chi Square(1) = ; p ) and other-focused values being positively (B =1.568; SE =.387; Wald Chi Square(1) = ; p ) associated with the likelihood of experiencing socially engaging emotions as dominant. For situations that occurred within the past few weeks (episodic strategy), a model including the relevance of self-focused and other-focused variables fitted the data better than the 0-model (Drop in deviance χ() = 4.696, p ); the percentage of correct classifications went up from 54.6% to 58.9%. Again, both main effects of the relevance of self-focused and other-focused values were statistically significant and in the expected direction, with self-focused values being negatively (B = -1.01; SE =.399; Wald Chi Square(1) = 9.076; p =.003) and other-focused values being positively (B = 1.678; SE =.371; Wald Chi Square(1) = 0.504; p ) associated with the likelihood of experiencing socially engaging emotions as dominant. 0

21 The analysis thus yielded consistent results for both situations that were relatively recent (episodic recall) and for those that occurred relatively long ago (semantic responding), although the model was slightly stronger overall for the latter, in line with Robinson and Clore s theory. However, we are reluctant to use these finding to explain the observed difference in associative strength between Studies 1 and on the one hand and Study 3 on the other. Our reasons are twofold. First, the difference in associative strengths between values and emotions in the episodic versus semantic situations of Study was small. Second, an explanation in terms of the accessibility of semantic information would require that people endorse certain beliefs about the links between values and emotions, which they usually don t (see also p. 36). 1

22 Figure A4. Odds-ratio s for the relevance of each individual value (0 = not relevant; 1 = relevant) and the most intense type of emotions in the situation (0 = disengaging; 1 = engaging), based on the data of Studies 1 and.