Pleasure and Displeasure in Reaction to Conflicting Picture Pairs: Examining Appealingness and Appallingness Appraisals.

Transcription

1 Affect & Conflict 1 Pleasure and Displeasure in Reaction to Conflicting Picture Pairs: Examining Appealingness and Appallingness Appraisals Ulrich Schimmack University of Toronto, Mississauga Stan Colcombe University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Stephen Crites Jr. University of Texas, El Paso May 2001 RUNNING HEAD: Affect & Conflict Ulrich Schimmack Department of Psychology University of Toronto at Mississauga Erindale College 3359 Mississauga Road North Mississauga, Ontario, L5L 1C6 Canada uli.schimmack@utoronto.ca about 15,000 words

2 Affect & Conflict 2 Abstract We examined affective reactions to conflicting (i.e., appealing and appalling) pairs of emotional pictures. In Studies 1 and 2, participants rated the intensity of pleasure and displeasure. Conflicting picture pairs elicited reports of both pleasure and displeasure (i.e., mixed feelings). However, the appalling picture reduced the intensity of pleasure and the appealing picture reduced the intensity of displeasure. We propose the Distributed Attention Theory of Emotion (DATE) to explain these findings. DATE assumes that affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs depend on the distribution of attention to the pictures. When attention is allocated to both pictures, people experience mixed feelings but at reduced intensities. Study 3 provided support for DATE with behavioral and neuropsychological measures.

3 Affect & Conflict 3 Pleasure and Displeasure in Reaction to Conflicting Picture Pairs: Examining Appealingness and Appallingness Appraisals Experiences of pleasure and displeasure are a prominent topic in psychology (Frijda, 1999; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Rozin, 1999). Several emotion researchers consider pleasure and displeasure core elements of affective experiences (Frijda, 1999; Ortony et al., 1988; Reisenzein, 1992, 1994; Russell, 1980; Schimmack, Oishi, Diener, & Suh, 2000; Weiner, 1986; Wierzbicka, 1992). Furthermore, experiences of pleasure and displeasure are important indicators of subjective well-being (Diener, 1984; Kahneman, 1999), and they strongly influence people s evaluations of their lives (Schimmack, Diener, Oishi, in press). Hence, examining the processes underlying the elicitation of pleasure and displeasure is important to answer the fundamental question of the determinants of happiness or subjective well-being (Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). Appraisals as Determinants of Pleasure and Displeasure The determinants of pleasure and displeasure have been studied extensively by appraisal theorists of emotions (Arnold, 1960; Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Ortony et al., 1988; Reisenzein & Spielhofer, 1994; Scherer, 1984; Smith & Kirby, 2000). Accordingly, pleasure and displeasure are outcomes of appraisals of the environment in relation to one's own needs, goals, desires, or standards. Goal-congruent situations are appraised as favorable and elicit pleasure, whereas goal-incongruent situations are appraised as unfavorable and elicit displeasure. Ortony et al. (1988) differentiate three types of appraisal processes, namely appraisals of event-outcomes, appraisals of agents' actions, and appraisals of objects. Although all three processes are important for the understanding of happiness, the present article is only concerned with object appraisals. According to Ortony et al. (1988), objects are appraised in terms of appealingness. Appealing objects elicit pleasure, whereas appalling objects elicit displeasure. For

4 Affect & Conflict 4 example, a picture of a tropical beach elicits pleasure, whereas a picture of a dirty toilet elicits displeasure (see, e.g., Ito, Cacioppo, & Lang, 1998). Appraisal theory assumes that the former affective reaction was mediated by an appealingness appraisal, whereas the latter affective reaction was mediated by an appallingness appraisal. In unambiguous situations, it is possible to predict affective outcomes from the appealingness and the appallingness of objects. However, affect researchers have neglected ambiguous situations, in which people are confronted with appealing and appalling objects. For example, how do people feel in response to concurrent presentations of a picture of a beach and a picture of a toilet? 1 Ambiguous situations raise several questions. Can people appraise two objects concurrently? Is the appraisal of appealing and appalling objects a unitary process, or are appealing and appalling objects appraised separately? Are appealingness and appallingness appraisals isolated processes that do not influence each other, or do opposing appraisals influence each other? Do appraisals occur automatically or do they require attention? The answers to these questions will shape theories of pleasure, displeasure, and subjective well-being. For example, Locke (1975/1689) suggested that a little pain serving to marr all the pleasure we rejoiced in. And therefore, that, which of course determines the choice of our will to the next action, will always be the removing of pain, as long as we have any left, as the first and necessary step towards happiness (p. 254). Accordingly, any presentation of conflicting objects should result in pure displeasure, and happiness requires the removal of appalling objects. Alternatively, one may postulate that people can look to the bright side of life and simply ignore appalling objects to achieve happiness when they are confronted with conflicting objects. Evidently, we need empirical data to understand how people really respond to conflicting objects. Theoretical Background Previous appraisal theories were primarily concerned with affective reactions to unambiguous situations (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 1984). Hence, these theories do not

5 Affect & Conflict 5 address how appraisals work when more than one object is appraised. Furthermore, quantitative data on affective reactions to conflicting situations are virtually absent (see Beebe-Center, 1932; Schimmack & Colcombe, 1999, for reviews). Consequently, the main purpose of the present article was to provide empirical evidence regarding affective reactions to conflicting objects. However, our research was not conducted in a theoretical vacuum. Rather, we developed three competing theories to guide our empirical work, namely (a) the isolated-appraisal model, (b) the integrated-appraisal model, and (c) the distributed attention theory of emotion. The isolated-appraisal model. Our first model assumes that appealingness and appallingness appraisals are isolated processes. We developed this model because it is the most parsimonious model of appraisal processes. It assumes that appealingness and appallingness appraisals operate in the same manner in response to ambiguous and unambiguous objects. To illustrate, imagine an appealing picture of a beach and an appalling picture of a toilet. Assume that the picture of the beach elicits strong pleasure and no displeasure (P = 4 & D = 0). Now, assume that the picture of a toilet elicits no pleasure (P) and strong displeasure (D) (P = 0 & D = 4). The isolated-appraisal model assumes that concurrent presentations of the two pictures elicit two isolated appraisal processes. The beach picture is appraised as appealing, which elicits pleasure. At the same time, the toilet picture is appraised as appalling, which elicits displeasure. These two processes occur in parallel and are unrelated to each other. Hence, the appealingness appraisal produces as much pleasure as it would elicit if only the appealing picture were present (P = 4). Similarly, the appallingness appraisal process produces as much displeasure as it would elicit if only the appalling picture were present (D = 4). Consequently, concurrent presentations of the two pictures elicit strong pleasure and displeasure (P = 4 & D = 4). The isolated-appraisal model makes three predictions. First, an appealing picture elicits the same amount of pleasure when it is presented in a neutral context and when it

6 Affect & Conflict 6 is presented in the context of an appalling picture, and vice versa. Second, conflicting picture pairs elicit stronger affective reactions. I define the strength of affective reactions as the sum of pleasure and displeasure. 2 To illustrate, the beach elicits strong pleasure (P = 4) but no displeasure (D = 0). Hence, the strength of the affective reaction is 4 (4 + 0). The trash elicits strong displeasure (D = 4) and no pleasure (P = 0). The strength of this reaction is again 4. The isolated-appraisal model predicts that the two pictures together elicit strong pleasure and displeasure (P = 4, D = 4). The strength of this affective reaction is twice as large (4 + 4 = 8) as the average strength of the reactions to the appealing object and the appalling object in isolation ([4 + 4] / 2 = 4). In general, the isolated-appraisal model predicts that the strength of the affective reaction to a conflicting object pair is twice as large as the average reaction to the objects in isolation. The third prediction of the isolated-appraisal model is that conflicting picture pairs always elicit mixed feelings (i.e., concurrent experiences of pleasure and displeasure). The reason is simply that appealingness appraisals produce pleasure and appallingness appraisals elicit displeasure, and the two processes operate in isolation. The integrated-appraisal model. The integrated-appraisal model has a long tradition in philosophy and psychology (cf. Beebe-Center, 1932; Bain, 1859; Wundt, 1896; see also Reisenzein, 1992). McDougall (1926) provided a clear description of this model. It has been widely asserted that pleasure and pain [i.e., displeasure] are antagonists which cannot coexist, because each destroys or neutralizes the other, like acid and alkali in solution; or, otherwise stated that they are quantities of opposite signs which undergo algebraic summation, so that the feeling-tone of the subject is always one of pleasure or of pain, or, if the pleasurable and painful influences [i.e., appealingness and appallingness appraisals] are equally balanced, neutral (i.e., non-existent). (pp ). To illustrate, think again of the previous example of the beach picture (P = 4, D = 0) and the toilet picture (P = 0, D = 4). Neutralization implies that the appealingness of

7 Affect & Conflict 7 the beach picture and the appallingness of the toilet picture cancel each other out and produce a neutral reaction (P = 0, D = 0). However, complete neutralization is only a special case of the integrated-appraisal model. In many instances, one appraisal is stronger than the other one. In these situations, only one affect is eliminated, whereas the intensity of the other affect is reduced. For example, if the beach picture is very appealing (P = 4, D = 0) and the toilet picture is only mildly appalling (P = 0, D = 2), then the affective reaction is mild pleasure (P = 2, D = 0). The integrated-appraisal model makes two major predictions. First, it predicts that conflicting picture pairs do not elicit mixed feelings. The reason is that the weaker appraisal is always neutralized by the stronger appraisal. If appallingness is stronger than appealingness, people do not experience pleasure although an appealing object is present. If appealingness is stronger than appallingness, people do not experience displeasure although an appalling object is present. The second prediction is that the strength of the affective reaction is weaker than the average affective reaction to the objects in isolation. To illustrate, complete neutralization assumes that the beach picture (P = 4 & D = 0, Strength = 4) and the toilet picture (P = 0 & D = 4, Strength = 4) neutralize each other (P = 0 & D = 0; Strength = 0). This strength is smaller than the average strength of the affective reactions to the conflicting pictures in isolation (i.e., [4 + 4] / 2 = 4). Even if the toilet picture were only mildly appalling (D = 2 & P = 0, Strength = 2), concurrent presentations of the beach and the trash would elicit a milder response then the average strength of the pictures in isolation (i.e., [0 + 2] = 2 vs. [4 + 2] / 2 = 3). These predictions are exactly the opposite of the predictions by the isolated-appraisal model. The distributed attention theory of emotions (DATE). The distributed attention theory of emotion (DATE) assumes that affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs are influenced by the focus of attention. This model was inspired by empirical studies in early emotion research (Kellogg, 1915; Wohlgemuth, 1919) and by theoretical reflections on mixed feelings. For example, Ebbinghaus (1905) proposed that it should be possible to

8 Affect & Conflict 8 experience mixed feelings to the extent that people can simultaneously attend to an appealing and an appalling object. More recently, Ortony et al. (1988) suggested that appraisal processes are influenced by attention. Accordingly, different foci of attention can lead to different affective experiences. They presented an example, in which an individual expects a $500 tax return, but actually receives a $100 tax return. The authors propose that taxpayers feel displeasure when they focus on the expectation, but that they feel pleasure when they focus on the bottom line. Furthermore, not only are both reactions possible, but in most of us, they are both quite likely to occur, perhaps even within the space of a few moments. (Ortony et al., 1988, p. 53). Consistent with this idea, DATE assumes that focus of attention is an important determinant of affective reactions to conflicting situations. DATE is based on three fundamental assumptions. First, it postulates that the intensity of emotional experiences increases with attention to the object (e.g., Alechsieff, 1907; Diener, Colvin, Pavot, & Allman, 1991; Lane, Fink, Chau, & Dolan, 1997). Second, it postulates that people have the ability to attend concurrently to two emotional objects, just as they can divide attention in other situations (e.g., Pasher, 1998; Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976). Third, it postulates that attention is a limited resource (Kahneman, 1973). These three assumptions lead to the prediction that affective experiences to picture-pairs depend on the distribution of attention between the two pictures. As more attention is deployed to one picture, less attention is deployed to the other picture. It follows that as the affective reaction to the former picture increases, the one to the latter picture decreases. The quantitative impact of reduced attention on affective reactions is an empirical question. We started with the simple assumption that attention has a linear effect on affect and that equally divided attention reduces the intensity of affective reactions by half. Hence, with equally divided attention between the beach picture (P = 4, D = 0) and the toilet picture (P = 0, D = 4), people should experience only mild pleasure and mild displeasure (P = 2, D = 2). When attention is

9 Affect & Conflict 9 devoted exclusively to the beach, the affective reaction is the same as if this picture were presented by itself (P = 4, D = 0). When attention is predominantly allocated to the beach, pleasure dominates but mild displeasure is experienced as well (P = 3 & D = 1). DATE makes several predictions that differentiate it from the former two models. First, DATE assumes that conflicting picture pairs can elicit different affective reactions. At times, they elicit displeasure without pleasure, at other times, they elicit pleasure without displeasure, and sometimes they elicit mixed feelings. In contrast, the isolatedappraisal model assumes that conflicting picture pairs always elicit mixed feelings, whereas the integrated-appraisal model assumes that conflicting picture pairs never elicit mixed feelings. The second prediction of DATE is that the strength of the affective reaction to two conflicting picture pairs depends on the allocation of attention. When all possible distributions of attention are equally likely to occur, then DATE predicts that the strength of affective reactions to a conflicting pair is identical to the average strength of the reactions to the pictures in isolation. To illustrate, the strength of the affective reaction to the beach picture (P = 4, D = 0) paired with the toilet picture (P = 0, D = 4) is 4 for all possible distributions of attention ([0 + 4]; [1 + 3]; [2 + 2]; [3 + 1]; [4 + 0]). Hence, averaged across all distributions of attention, the average strength is also 4. This strength is identical to the average strength of the reactions to the beach picture in isolation and the toilet picture in isolation (i.e., [4 + 4]/2 = 4). This prediction also holds when the appealing and the appalling picture differ in strength. For example, if the beach picture were very appealing (P = 4 & D = 2) and the toilet picture were only mildly appalling (P = 0 & D = 2), then the average strength of the reactions to the pictures in isolation would be 3 ([4 + 2]/2 = 3). DATE predicts different reactions for different distributions of attention ([4 + 0], [ ], [2 + 1], [ ], [0 + 2]). Averaged across all states of distributed attention, the average strength is also 3 ([ ]/5 = 3). This prediction of DATE differs from the prediction of the integrated-appraisal model that conflicting picture pairs elicit weaker reactions than the average strength of

10 Affect & Conflict 10 the reactions to the pictures in isolation. It also differs from the prediction of the isolatedappraisal model that conflicting picture pairs always elicit stronger affective reactions than the average reaction to the picture in isolation. DATE also differs from the other models in its prediction that affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs are not a linear function of the reactions to the objects in isolation. Both the integrated-appraisal model and the isolated-appraisal model assume that one can predict the affective reaction to conflicting picture pairs from the reactions to the objects in isolation. If the beach picture elicits strong pleasure and the trash picture elicits strong displeasure, then the two pictures together elicit strong pleasure and displeasure (isolated-appraisal model) or they elicit neither pleasure nor displeasure (integrated-appraisal model). DATE assumes that the affective reaction depends on the allocation of attention. Hence, affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs cannot be predicted from the appraisals of the objects in isolation. Even a very appealing picture may fail to elicit pleasure when it is presented in the context of an appalling picture that attracts all of the attention. Overview All studies examine affective reactions to pairs of pictures. Hence, the present studies examined affective reactions to two unrelated objects (e.g., a picture of a beach and a picture of a toilet). Using pairs of unrelated pictures has one methodological advantage over studies with a single object with conflicting aspects. Namely, it is possible to test the affective reaction to each picture in isolation (or in combination with a neutral picture). Hence, it becomes possible to compare affective reactions to pictures in isolation to affective reactions in the context of an opposing object. This comparison is crucial for an empirical test of our models. Studies 1 and 2 used intensity ratings of pleasure and displeasure as the dependent variable. The predictions of the three models are summarized in Table 1. Study 3 examined affective reactions to conflicting picture

11 Affect & Conflict 11 pairs using behavioral and physiological measures. The theoretical predictions for these measures are explained in the Introduction to Study 3. Study 1 Study 1 was inspired by an interesting, though forgotten, experiment by Kellogg (1915). Kellogg (1915) presented appealing (e.g., kitten) and appalling (e.g., surgical procedure) pictures to participants. He presented two pictures in rapid alternations, while participants had to report their feelings. Due to the rapid alternations, participants had the impression of seeing both pictures nearly concurrently. Kellogg found different affective reactions to the presentation of conflicting pictures. Sometimes they elicited mixed feelings and sometimes one picture neutralized the impact of the other. However, it remained unclear why conflicting picture pairs elicited different affective reactions. We predicted that the different affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs were due to different allocations of attention to the pictures. We tested this prediction by selecting arousing and calm pictures. It is a robust finding in the emotion literature that arousing pictures attract more attention and that they are better recalled than calm pictures (e.g., Bradley, Greenwald, Petry, & Lang, 1992; Lang, Greenwald, Bradley, & Hamm, 1993). Furthermore, arousing pictures reduce the allocation of attention to concurrently presented stimuli. In a recent study, MacLin, MacLin, and Malpass (2000) presented faces in the context of neutral and appallingarousing pictures. Face-recognition was impaired by the concurrent presentation of the arousing pictures. Christianson (1986) demonstrated the same effect for appealingarousing stimuli (i.e., erotic pictures). Finally, Pratto (1994) reported that negative words produced more interference in the emotional Stroop task than ordinary positive words, but positive arousing words (e.g., kiss) produced as much interference as the negative words. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest that attention is correlated with an object s power to increase arousal. Hence, we predicted that participants pay more attention to an arousing picture when they are confronted with a calm and an arousing

12 Affect & Conflict 12 picture. If the arousing picture is appalling, then the pair should elicit more displeasure than pleasure. If the arousing picture is appealing, then the pair should elicit more pleasure than displeasure. We also included a free-recall task after the presentation of the pictures to replicate previous findings that participants allocate more attention to the arousing pictures. In short, Study 1 examined affective reactions to four different types of conflicting picture pairs, namely appealing-calm/appalling-calm, appealingcalm/appalling-arousing, appealing-arousing/appalling-calm, appealingarousing/appalling-arousing. We changed the presentation mode from rapid alternations (Kellogg, 1915) to concurrent presentations of two pictures side-by-side, which is more consistent with the idea that participants can divide attention between two objects in different locations (Pasher, 1998). Participants Thirty-six male students at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, took part in the study for course credit. Materials Pictures were taken partly from the International Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1995; see also Ito, Cacioppo et al., 1998), and partly from free Internet sites. All pictures were edited to be 300 pixels wide and 450 pixels long to enable side-by-side presentations on an 800 x 600 pixel screen. Furthermore, we used black-and-white pictures because the computers for this study did not support high quality color presentations. We selected 10 neutral pictures (symbolized as 0 ), 10 appealing-calm pictures (+C), 10 appealing-arousing pictures (+A), 10 appalling-calm (-C) pictures, 10 appallingarousing (-A) pictures; a total of 50 different pictures. The 10 neutral pictures (0) were merely gray squares. These pictures were created to minimize affective reactions. The 10 appealing-calm (+C) pictures were pictures of landscapes and cute animals. The 10 appealing -arousing (+A) pictures were pictures of semi-nude adult models. The 10

13 Affect & Conflict 13 appalling-calm (-C) pictures displayed graveyards, insects, and a dirty toilet. The 10 appalling-arousing (-A) pictures displayed mutilated bodies, and dangerous animals (e.g., snakes). Pictures from the ITAS were selected based on previous pleasure, displeasure, and arousal ratings (Ito, Cacioppo, et al., 1998). A pilot study with 26 students confirmed the classification of pictures into the five categories. However, we noticed that appallingcalm pictures were less intense than other emotional pictures. This problem occurred because displeasure and arousal are highly correlated for appalling pictures (Ito, Cacioppo, et al., 1998). Hence, the IAPS does not include a sufficient number of pictures that elicit strong displeasure without increasing arousal at the same time (Lang et al., 1993). The 50 pictures were randomly allocated to 25 picture-pairs. Hence, participants saw each picture only once. The random assignment of individual pictures to pairs controlled for variations in appealingness, appallingness, and arousal among pictures of the same type. Nine pairs combined two appealing pictures or two appalling pictures. These pairs are irrelevant for the present article. The remaining 16 pairs consisted of two replications of 8 types of pairs, namely neutral/appealing-calm (0/+C), neutral/appealingarousing (0/+A), neutral/appalling-calm (0/-C), neutral/appalling-arousing (0/-A), appealing-calm/appalling-calm (+C/-C), appealing-calm/appalling-arousing (+C/-A), appealing-arousing/appalling-calm (+A/-C) and appealing-arousing/appalling-calm (+A/- A). The two replications were used to counterbalance the presentation of the two pictures in each pair. For example, if one pair showed an appealing-calm picture on the left side and an appalling-arousing picture on the right side, then the complementary pair showed another appalling-arousing picture on the left side and another appealing-calm picture on the right side. This procedure controlled for potential lateralization effects (e.g., pictures on the left side could have a stronger impact).

14 Affect & Conflict 14 Procedure Participants first read and signed an informed consent form and a mood questionnaire. Then they were seated in front of a computer. The screen displayed instructions for the main experiment. After reading the instructions, participants pressed a mouse button to start the experiment. The computer presented 25 picture pairs in a new random order for each participant. The pictures appeared side by side and remained on the screen for 4s. Afterwards, the pictures were removed and a rating scale appeared. The items were During the picture presentation I felt pleasant and During the picture presentation I felt unpleasant. Ratings were made on a seven-point intensity scale ranging from 0 = not at all to 6 = extremely intensely. The computer randomly determined the order of the two items. After the picture presentations, participants completed another mood questionnaire. Then they received a list with 20 blank lines to recall pictures. They were asked to recall at lest 10 pictures and to provide a detailed description that discriminated the picture from other pictures. Results To test significance, we used two-tailed tests and an alpha error of.05. When we report that an effect is significant without probabilities, the probabilities were smaller than.01. We first examined whether the arrangement of pictures in a pair had an effect. That is, whether pairs with an appealing picture on the left and an appalling picture on the right elicited different affective reactions than complementary pairs with the appalling picture on the left and the appealing picture on the right side. Neither pleasure nor displeasure ratings were influenced by the presentation of pictures on the left or the right side of a picture pair. Thus, we averaged the data across the two complementary picture pairs (e.g., left: appealing-calm right: appalling-arousing & left: appallingarousing & right: appealing-calm).

15 Affect & Conflict 15 Pleasure The first analyses examined whether appealing pictures elicit the same amount of pleasure in the context of appalling pictures as they do in the context of neutral pictures (see Figure 1). +C/0 pairs elicited more pleasure (M = 4.04) than +C/-C pairs (M = 2.13), t(35) = 6.90, and +C/-A pairs (M = 0.92), t(35) = The difference between +C/-C and +C/-A pairs was also significant. t(35) = A/0 pairs elicited more pleasure (M = 4.47) than +A/-C pairs (M = 3.81), t(35) = 3.19, and +A/-A pairs (M = 2.99), t(35) = The difference between the latter two pairs was also significant. t(79) = These results have two implications. First, they are inconsistent with the prediction of the isolated-appraisal model that pleasure is not influenced by presentations of appalling pictures. Second, the results show that arousing pictures had a stronger impact on the affective reaction than calm pictures. Displeasure The following analyses compare displeasure in conflicting pairs to displeasure in pairs of appalling pictures with a neutral picture (Figure 1). -C/0 pairs elicited more displeasure (M = 2.86) than -C/+C pairs (M = 1.85), t(35) = 3.53, and -C/+A pairs (M = 1.51), t(35) = The latter two pairs did not differed significantly from each other, t(35) = A/0 pairs elicited more displeasure (M = 4.14) than -A/+C pairs (M = 3.50), t(35) = 2.59, p =.01, and -A/+A pairs (M = 2.42), t(35) = The difference between the latter two pairs was also significant. t(35) = These findings contradict the isolated-appraisal model's prediction that the presence of an appealing picture has no effect on displeasure. The results also replicate the previous finding that arousing picture have a stronger impact on the affective reaction, although the effect did not reach statistical significance for displeasure in response to appalling-calm pictures. The reason appears to be the low level of displeasure that was already considerably reduced by the appealing-calm picture. In contrast, appalling-arousing pictures elicited strong

16 Affect & Conflict 16 displeasure, which was considerably more reduced by the appealing-arousing pictures than by the appealing-calm pictures. Mixed Feelings The previous findings for pleasure and displeasure in response to conflicting picture pairs (see Figure 1) appear to refute the integrated-appraisal model because conflicting pairs elicited pleasure and displeasure. However, this finding could be an artifact of averaging across participants. It is possible that some participants reacted with strong pleasure and no displeasure, whereas others reacted in the opposite way. Averaging across individuals, one could obtain moderate levels of pleasure and displeasure in response to conflicting picture pairs even if each participant experienced only pleasure or displeasure. To address this concern, it is important to examine coactivation of pleasure and displeasure for each participant in reaction to each picture pair. We used the MIN statistic for this purpose (Priester & Petty, 1996; Schimmack, 2001; Schimmack, Coleman, & Diener, 2000). MIN(pleasure, displeasure) resumes the lower of the two values. For example, if pleasure is 3 and displeasure is 1, MIN(pleasure, displeasure) equals 1. In this sense, MIN is a measure of the intensity of mixed feelings; higher MIN values correspond to higher concurrent levels of pleasure and displeasure (Schimmack, 2001; Schimmack, et al., 2000). One problem of the MIN statistic is that it is susceptible to response styles. A preference for high numbers or an avoidance of the lowest response category can produce MIN values greater than zero, even when participants never experience mixed feelings. The influence of response styles can be observed in MIN values in reaction to neutral pairs, which should not elicit mixed feelings. MIN for the neutral pair was close to zero (M = 0.14, on a scale ranging from 0 to 6), indicating that response styles had a trivial effect on affect ratings. This finding replicates earlier findings (Schimmack, 2001). Next, we compared MIN values in response to all four types of conflicting pairs to MIN values in response to neutral pairs (Figure 2). All four comparisons were significant, t(35) >

17 Affect & Conflict Thus, concurrent presentations of an appealing and an appalling picture elicited mixed feelings. This finding is inconsistent with the prediction of the integrated-appraisal model that conflicting picture pairs never elicit mixed feelings. The next analysis compared MIN values of the four types of conflicting pairs to each other by means of a 2 (+C vs. +A) x 2 (-C vs. +C) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The main effect for appealing-calm vs. appealing-arousing pictures was significant, F(1,35) = Figure 2 shows that conflicting pairs with appealing-arousing pictures elicited more intense mixed feelings than conflicting pairs with appealing-calm pictures. Finally, we examined the data for the influence of demand effects. If participants responded to a demand to report mixed feelings, then they should do so consistently for all presentations of conflicting pairs. In addition, the isolated-appraisal model also predicts that conflicting picture pairs always elicit mixed feelings. We computed the percentage of reported mixed feelings (i.e., responses greater than 0 on pleasure and displeasure; cf. Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) in response to the eight conflicting pairs. On average, participants reported mixed feelings in response to 57% of the 8 conflicting pairs, and 78% of the participants reported mixed feelings in more than 2 and less than 7 of the 8 conflicting pairs. Hence, participants did not consistently report mixed feelings in response to all conflicting picture pairs. This finding is consistent with DATE s prediction that conflicting picture pairs elicit mixed feelings sometimes but not all the time. Strength The next analyses compared the strength of affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs to the strength of affective reactions in pairs with a neutral picture. Remember that strength was defined as the sum of pleasure and displeasure. For appealing pictures paired with a neutral picture, displeasure was low (+C/0 M = 0.26; +A/0 M = 0.26). Similarly, appalling pictures paired with a neutral picture elicited low levels of pleasure (-C/0 M = 0.91; -A/0 M = 0.25). Consequently, the strength of the

18 Affect & Conflict 18 affective reaction to these pictures is approximately equivalent to the intensity of pleasure and displeasure, respectively (see Figure 3). These values serve as a comparison standard for the strength of affective reaction to conflicting pairs. The strength for +C/-C pairs (M = 3.97) was not significantly different from the average strength of the affective reaction to +C/0 and C/0 pairs (M = 4.04), t(35) < The strength for +C/-A pairs (M = 4.42) was also not significantly different from the average strength of affective reactions to +C/0 and A/0 pairs (M = 4.35), t(35) < However, the strength for +A/-C pairs (M = 5.32) was significantly stronger than the average strength for +A/0 and C/0 pairs (M = 4.26), t(35) = Finally, the strength of reactions to +A/-A pairs (M = 5.40) was also significantly stronger than the average strength of the reactions to +A/0 and A/0 pairs (M = 4.56), t(35) = In sum, the results are clearly inconsistent with the prediction of the integrated-appraisal model that conflicting picture pairs elicit weaker affective reactions than the pictures in isolation. The results are also inconsistent with the isolated-appraisal model, which predicts much stronger reactions to conflicting picture pairs. The results are best in line with DATE, which predicts that affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs are the same as the average affective reaction to the pictures in isolation. However, the significantly stronger affective reactions to conflicting pairs with an appealing arousing picture are also inconsistent with DATE. If this finding replicates, it may be necessary to change the assumption that half the attention leads to half the intensity of affect. Recall Data One participant did not recall 10 or more pictures. Therefore, his data were excluded from the following analyses. We first examined the recall rates of the four types of pictures by means of an ANOVA with valence (appealing vs. appalling) and arousal (arousing vs. calm) as independent variables. The ANOVA revealed a significant effect for valence, F(1,34) = 4.18, p <.05, and a much stronger valence x arousal interaction, F(1,34) = Figure 4 shows the mean recall rates. As expected, participants recalled

19 Affect & Conflict 19 more appalling-arousing pictures (M =.46) than appalling-calm pictures (M =.31), t(35) = However, contrary to expectations, participants recalled fewer appealing-arousing pictures (M =.30) than appealing-calm pictures (M =.38), t(35) = This unexpected finding is most likely due to participants problems in providing unique descriptions of the appealing-arousing pictures. Many reports clearly indicated that they recalled seeing these pictures but the descriptions were too vague to match them to a particular picture (e.g., blonde). A second ANOVA examined the recall rates of pictures as a function of the type of context picture (i.e., the other picture in the pair). Again, an ANOVA with contextvalence (appealing vs. appalling) x context-arousal (arousing vs. calm) as independent variables was computed. This ANOVA revealed the expected main effect of arousal, F(1,34) = As expected, participants were less likely to recall a picture that was paired with an appealing-arousing picture (M =.28) than a picture that was paired with an appealing-calm picture (M =.38), t(34) = 2.74, p =.01. They were also less likely to recall a picture that was paired with an appalling-arousing picture (M =.30) than a picture that was paired with an appalling-calm picture (M =.42), t(34) = 2.64, p =.01. This second analysis avoids the problems of the first analysis of recall rates, namely differences in participants willingness or ability to provide detailed descriptions of pictures. Hence, the second analysis provides clearer evidence about the locus of attention. It suggests that participants attended more to the arousing pictures, which reduced the accessibility of the picture that was paired with an arousing picture. Discussion Study 1 examined affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs. It produced three major findings. First, pleasure in response to conflicting pairs was influenced by the appalling picture, and displeasure in response to conflicting pairs was influenced by the appealing picture. Second, arousing pictures had a stronger impact on affective reactions to conflicting pairs than calm pictures. Third, conflicting picture pairs elicited mixed

20 Affect & Conflict 20 feelings sometimes but not all the time. This pattern of results allows a first evaluation of the three models of affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs. The results were inconsistent with the predictions of the isolated-appraisal model. Accordingly, appealingness appraisals would produce the same affective outcome when an appealing picture is presented with a neutral picture and when it is paired with an appalling picture. However, the data from Study 1 demonstrate that the addition of an appalling picture decreased pleasure. Similarly, adding an appealing picture to an appalling picture decreased displeasure. In addition, the isolated-appraisal model predicts that conflicting picture pairs should always elicit mixed feelings, but participants only reported mixed feelings in response to some conflicting pairs. The results also challenged the integrated-appraisal model. The model predicts that conflicting picture pairs never elicit mixed feelings. Contrary to this prediction, conflicting picture pairs produced significantly higher intensities of mixed feelings than a neutral control condition. This finding cannot be attributed to random measurement error or an acquiescence response style. One possible objection could be a demand effect. Possibly, asking for separate ratings of pleasure and displeasure produced a demand to report both affects. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that most individuals reported mixed feelings on some trials but not on other trials. A simple demand effect also has problems to account for the more intense reports of mixed feelings in response to conflicting pairs with an appealing-arousing picture. The results are best in line with DATE s predictions. DATE predicts that affective reactions to conflicting pairs depend on the allocation of attention. Attention to one picture distracts attention from the other picture, which reduces the emotional reaction to this picture. Consistent with this prediction, adding an appalling picture reduced the intensity of pleasure, and adding an appealing picture reduced the intensity of displeasure. More important, this effect was stronger when the additional picture was arousing. The recall data revealed that arousing pictures reduced recall rates of pictures

21 Affect & Conflict 21 that were presented with arousing pictures. This finding strongly suggests that arousing pictures distracted participants from the other picture in the picture pair (see also MacLin et al., 2000). According to DATE, this further decreases the intensity of the affective reaction. Hence, DATE is the only model that can explain the stronger impact of arousing pictures on affective reactions to the other picture in a picture-pair. DATE can also explain the finding that conflicting picture pairs elicited mixed feelings on some occasions but not all the time. According to DATE, conflicting picture pairs only elicit mixed feelings when attention is distributed between the two pictures. When attention is fully allocated to one picture, only one affect is elicited. The fact that DATE is consistent with the major findings of Study 1 does of course not imply that DATE is correct. The more important contribution of Study 1 is the gathering of empirical data regarding affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs that have to be explained by any process model of object appraisals. Furthermore, Study 1 also produced one finding that was inconsistent with DATE. Namely, participants reported stronger affective reactions to conflicting picture pairs with an appealing-arousing picture than to conflicting pairs with an appealing-calm picture. If this were a replicable finding, it would indicate that DATE s assumption about the quantitative impact of attention on intensity needs to be adjusted. Study 2 examines this possibility. Study 2 Study 1 presented pictures for 4s, and participants were asked to report how they felt during this time interval. A 4s time interval allows participants to shift attention from one picture to the other. Hence, reports of mixed feelings in Study 1 may have been due to co-occurring experiences of pleasure and displeasure or due to rapidly alternating experiences of pleasure and displeasure. Both possibilities are consistent with Ortony et al. (1988) notion that people may hold conflicting appraisals within the space of a few moments (p. 53). Rapidly alternating experiences of pleasure and displeasure are also consistent with an influence of attention on affective experiences because alternating

22 Affect & Conflict 22 experiences typically co-occur with alternating foci of attention (cf. Alechsieff, 1907). Furthermore, rapid alternation would be inconsistent with the isolated-appraisal model that assumes continuous experiences of pleasure and displeasure. Alternation is also inconsistent with the integrated-appraisal model, which assumes that appealingness and appallingness information produce one continuous affective outcome. Nevertheless, DATE predicts that people can distribute attention between two pictures and experience pleasure and displeasure simultaneously. To test this hypothesis more thoroughly, we made two changes to the paradigm in Study 1. First, we shortened the presentation times to 1s. Second, we asked participants to report how they felt right before the pictures disappeared rather than asking for a report over an extended period of several seconds. Method Participants Thirty male students at the University of El Paso, Texas, participated in this study for course credit. Stimuli and Design The basic design involved presentation of 25 pairs of appealing pictures, 25 pairs of appalling pictures, and 25 conflicting pairs. Study 2 focused on appalling and appealing arousing pictures, which produced the strongest mixed feelings in Study 1. We needed 75 appalling pictures in Study 2. We selected the 75 most appalling pictures based on the ratings published by Ito, Cacioppo et al. (1998). The larger number of pictures forced us to include less intense appalling pictures than in Study 1. To compensate for the lower intensity of appalling pictures, we also toned done the appealing-arousing stimuli. We replaced the semi-nude pictures from Study 1 with pictures of non-nude lingerie and swimsuit models. These pictures were obtained from free Internet sites. In addition, we created 300 neutral pairs, which were used as buffers between critical trials. Neutral pairs were created by pairing 23 neutral pictures from the IAPS with each other (excluding pairs of two identical pictures), and then selected 300 neutral pairs at random.

23 Affect & Conflict 23 All pictures were edited to be 360 pixels wide and 540 pixels long to enable sideby-side presentations on an 800 x 600 pixel screen. We presented all pictures in color. Of the 75 appalling pictures, 50 were randomly combined to produce 25 pairs of appalling pictures, whereas the remaining 25 appalling pictures were combined with appealing pictures to produce conflicting pairs. For conflicting pairs, 13 pairs showed the appealing picture on the left side, and 12 pairs showed the appealing picture on the right side. Procedure After completing an informed consent form, participants were seated in front of a computer that displayed written instructions. Participants were told that they would see a trial of four neutral pictures followed by an emotional picture pair. After the emotional picture, a rating scale would appear. Participants were instructed to report how they felt right before the last picture disappeared. The experiment consisted of 75 trials. During each trial, participants first saw four neutral pairs followed by a critical pair. Each pair was displayed for 1s with an interstimulus interval of 1s. After the critical pair disappeared, a rating scale appeared with the lead sentence "Right before the end, I felt..." Then the computer displayed the items pleasant, and unpleasant in a new random order for each trial. The 75 trials were also presented in different random orders for each participant. Results Pleasure and Displeasure Figure 5 shows pleasure and displeasure in reaction to the three types of pairs. Pleasure for appealing pairs (M = 3.58) was higher than pleasure for conflicting pairs (M = 1.74), t(29) = Displeasure for appalling pairs (M = 2.81) was higher than displeasure for conflicting pairs (M = 2.29), t(29) = This finding replicates the pattern in Study 1 and is again inconsistent with the isolated-appraisal model.

24 Affect & Conflict 24 Mixed Feelings We determined the MIN values for each pair. Then we aggregated MIN values across the 25 replications of each experimental condition (Figure 5). The average MIN values were subjected to a one-way Analysis of Variance with type of pair as the withinsubject variable. MIN values differed significantly between conditions, F(2,29) = Separate t-test revealed that conflicting pairs elicited more intense mixed feelings (M = 0.81) than appealing pairs (M = 0.34), t(29) = 4.63, and more intense mixed feelings than appalling pairs (M = 0.51), t(29) = Hence, even with presentation times of 1s and instructions to report only feelings at the last moment, participants reported significantly more intense mixed feelings in reaction to conflicting picture pairs than in other conditions. We also examined how often participants reported mixed feelings in reaction to conflicting picture pairs (see Study 1). On average, participants reported mixed feelings in 49% of the 25 conflicting pairs. Fifteen participants (50%) reported mixed feelings on more than 25% and less than 75% of the trials. Only four participants reported mixed feelings on more than 80% of the trials. This finding is inconsistent with a demand effect, which predicts that reports of mixed feelings are consistent across trials that presented conflicting picture pairs. Strength Finally, we compared the strength of affective reactions to appealing, appalling, and conflicting picture pairs (Figure 5). Conflicting picture pairs elicited a stronger affective reactions (M = 4.03) than the average strength of the affective reaction to appealing pairs and appalling pairs (M = 3.72), t(29) = 2.47, p =.02. This finding could be consistent with DATE, if the stronger appealing stimuli attracted more attention. However, pleasure and displeasure ratings suggest that participants were more strongly influenced by the appalling picture in the conflicting pair. That is, the difference in pleasure between appealing and conflicting pairs is larger than the difference in

25 Affect & Conflict 25 displeasure between appalling and conflicting pairs. Hence, this finding suggests that DATE s assumptions about the quantitative influence of attention on the intensity of affective reactions may need to be adjusted. Nevertheless, the results are much more consistent with DATE, then with the integrated-appraisal model, which predicts weaker reactions to conflicting pairs, or the isolated appraisal model, which predicts a strength of Discussion Study 2 replicated key findings of Study 1. First, adding an appealing picture to an appalling picture decreases displeasure, and adding an appalling picture to an appealing one decreases pleasure. Second, conflicting pairs elicited more intense mixed feelings than unambiguous pairs. This finding was obtained despite brief presentation times of 1s and instructions to report only feelings at the moment before the pictures disappeared. Furthermore, participants sometimes reported mixed feelings and sometimes reported mutually exclusive experiences of pleasure and displeasure in response to conflicting pairs. Finally, the strength of the affective reactions to conflicting picture-pairs was not consistently weaker than the strength of affective reactions to appalling or appealing picture-pairs, as predicted by the integrated-appraisal model. Strength was also not significantly higher for conflicting picture-pairs than for the stronger pictures (i.e., the appealing-arousing pictures in this study), as predicted by the isolated-appraisal model. In sum, DATE is the only model that is consistent with the data of Study 2. Once more, we need to emphasize that consistency does not proof DATE correct. Other models may be able to explain the data. However, any model needs to take the new finding of Study 2 into account that participants report mixed feelings even when presentation times of the picture pairs was limited to 1s and when they were instructed to report their experiences at one moment in time.