The Cognitive Antecedents and Behavioural Consequences of Schadenfreude in an Evolutionary Framework

Home , Schadenfreude

THE COGNITIVE ANTECEDENTS AND BEHAVIOURAL CONSEQUENCES OF SCHADENFREUDE IN AN EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK

Pamela Jean Black

B.A. (Hons.), Memorial University of Newfoundland, 2010 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2012

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

The College of Graduate Studies

(Psychology)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan)

December 2018

The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled:

THE COGNITIVE ANTECEDENTS AND BEHAVIOURAL CONSEQUENCES OF SCHADENFREUDE IN AN EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK ______

submitted by Pamela Jean Black in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy .

Dr. Paul G. Davies, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences ______Supervisor

Dr. Jan Cioe, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences ______Supervisory Committee Member

Dr. Lesley Lutes, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences ______Supervisory Committee Member

Dr. Rachelle Hole, School of Social Work, Faculty of Health and Social Development ______University Examiner

Dr. Jennifer Overbeck, Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne ______External Examiner

Additional Committee Members include:

Dr. Leanne ten Brinke, Department of Psychology, University of Denver ______Supervisory Committee Member

ii Abstract

Schadenfreude is the subjective emotional experience of malicious pleasure that follows from observing another person suffer a misfortune (Heider, 1958). This positive affective reaction is universal, experienced across the lifespan and across cultures. To date, research in this area has focused primarily on the cognitive appraisals that precede this emotion, highlighting the important role of upward social comparison prior to the ensuing experience of schadenfreude.

Less focus has been placed on the remaining components of the schadenfreude response, such as the behavioural consequences, leaving much to be learned about this affective state. Using evolutionary theory as an organizing framework, the present three-study dissertation further explored the influence of social comparison on schadenfreude and tested several novel questions related to the impact of the nature of the misfortune, the experience of observing repeated misfortunes, and the ultimate effect of malicious pleasure on subsequent behaviour. Across the three studies, upward, rather than downward, social comparison reliably predicted feelings of pleasure for a target following a misfortune. There also was preliminary evidence that schadenfreude, in the context of an upward social comparison, dissipates following the observation of a single misfortune. Interestingly, relative to previous research, which has typically manipulated minor misfortunes, the present dissertation depicted major misfortunes, and participants responded with less schadenfreude. Finally, although social comparison and misfortune type did not directly influence helping behaviour, evidence was found for a relationship between the experience of schadenfreude for a target and a resulting lack of willingness to personally help that individual. Overall, the findings add to our understanding of the cognitive, behavioural, and subjective experience of schadenfreude and novel aspects of this research provide insights and important recommendations for future research on this common emotional state.

iii Lay Summary

Emotions are comprised of several components, including cognitions, physiological changes, communication efforts, and behaviours in addition to the subjective experience. This dissertation explored facets of the emotion of schadenfreude, which is the feeling of malicious pleasure derived from observing another individual suffer a misfortune, using an evolutionary framework. Related to cognitions, the results revealed that participants who perceived the target to be superior, rather than inferior, to themselves reported more schadenfreude after the target suffered a misfortune. There was less support found for the relevance of misfortune type on the schadenfreude response. Considering the behavioural consequences of schadenfreude, there was some evidence that, after experiencing schadenfreude for a target, participants were less willing to personally help the target. This research provides additional support for schadenfreude being driven by perceived competition and resulting in behavioural efforts to maintain competitors’ reduced superiority. It also contributes important insights for future research.

iv Preface The University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board granted ethics approval for this research on February 29th, 2016, March 16th, 2016, and August 21st, 2017. The ethics approval certificate numbers for these studies are H15-02220 (Pilot and Study 1), H16-

00243 (Study 2), and H17-01521 (Study 3). As of the date of this submission, the data included in this dissertation have not been published.

v Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Lay Summary ...... iv

Preface ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... x

Acknowledgments ...... xii

Dedication ...... xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Definition of Emotion ...... 2 1.1.1 The Emotion of Schadenfreude ...... 2 1.1.2 Cognitions ...... 4 1.1.3 Neurophysiology ...... 9 1.1.4 Communication ...... 10 1.1.5 Behaviour ...... 11 1.1.6 Summary of Schadenfreude as an Emotional Experience ...... 14 1.2 Organizing the Study of Schadenfreude Using Evolutionary Theory ...... 14 1.2.1 Gender Differences in Social Comparison for Mate Competition ...... 15 1.2.2 Schadenfreude, Gender, and Misfortune Type ...... 16 1.3 Overview of the Present Dissertation ...... 19

Chapter 2 Pilot Study ...... 21

vi 2.1 Overview ...... 21 2.2 Participants ...... 21 2.3 Materials and Procedure ...... 21 2.3.1 Misfortune Vignettes ...... 21 2.4 Results ...... 22 2.5 Discussion ...... 24

Chapter 3 Study 1 ...... 26

3.1 Overview ...... 26 3.2 Participants ...... 26 3.3 Materials and Procedure ...... 27 3.3.1 Social Comparison Primes ...... 27 3.3.2 Misfortune Vignettes ...... 27 3.3.3 Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form ...... 28 3.4 Results ...... 29 3.4.1 Schadenfreude ...... 29 3.4.2 Empathy ...... 30 3.4.3 Relationship Between Schadenfreude and Empathy ...... 32 3.5 Discussion ...... 32

Chapter 4 Study 2 ...... 34

4.1 Overview ...... 34 4.2 Participants ...... 35 4.3 Materials and Procedure ...... 35 4.4 Results ...... 36 4.4.1 Schadenfreude ...... 36 4.4.2 Schadenfreude for Repeated Misfortunes ...... 36

vii 4.5 Discussion ...... 37

Chapter 5 Study 3 ...... 39

5.1 Overview ...... 39 5.2 Participants ...... 40 5.3 Materials and Procedure ...... 40 5.3.1 Social Comparison Primes ...... 40 5.3.2 Misfortune Vignettes ...... 41 5.3.3 Helping Behaviour Questions ...... 42 5.4 Results ...... 42 5.4.1 Schadenfreude ...... 42 5.4.2 Others’ Willingness to Help ...... 43 5.4.3 Personal Willingness to Help ...... 44 5.4.4 Relationship Between Schadenfreude and Helping Behaviour ...... 44 5.5 Discussion ...... 45

Chapter 6 General Discussion ...... 46

6.1 Cognitions ...... 47 6.2 Schadenfreude Following Repeated Misfortunes ...... 48 6.3 Behavioural Consequences ...... 49 6.4 Evolutionary Theory: Schadenfreude, Gender, and Misfortune Type ...... 51 6.5 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 53 6.6 Conclusion ...... 56

References ...... 70

Appendices ...... 84

Appendix A Misfortune Vignettes (Pilot Study) ...... 84

viii Appendix B Social Comparison Primes (Studies 1 and 2) ...... 87 Appendix C Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form ...... 89 Appendix D Social Comparison Primes and Misfortune Vignettes (Study 3) ...... 90

ix List of Tables

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Pilot Study Misfortune Vignettes ...... 57

Table 2 Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude and

Empathy (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) by Social Comparison,

Target Gender, and Misfortune Type Conditions ...... 58

Table 3 Study 1: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

× 2 (misfortune type) Mixed Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude ...... 59

Table 4 Study 1: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

× 2 (misfortune type) Mixed Design ANOVA for Empathy ...... 60

Table 5 Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude (on a

Likert scale from 1 to 5) Across Social Comparison, Target Gender,

and Misfortune Type Conditions ...... 61

Table 6 Study 2: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

× 2 (misfortune type) Mixed Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude ...... 62

Table 7 Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude (on a

Likert scale from 1 to 5) Across Social Comparison, Target Gender, and

Presentation Order ...... 63

Table 8 Study 2: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

× 4 (presentation order) Mixed Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude ...... 64

Table 9 Study 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude (on a

Likert scale from 1 to 5) and Others’ and Personal Willingness to

Help (in minutes) Across Social Comparison, Target Gender, and

Misfortune Type Conditions ...... 65

Table 10 Study 3: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

x × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude ...... 67

Table 11 Study 3: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

× 2 (misfortune type) Mixed Design ANOVA for Others’ Willingness to Help

...... 68

Table 12 Study 3: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender)

× 2 (misfortune type) Mixed Design ANOVA for Personal

Willingness to Help ...... 69

xi Acknowledgments

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of an incredible circle of mentors, peers, and family members. First and foremost, I must express my immense gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Paul Davies, for his constant support, wisdom and guidance. I so appreciate the time and effort you put into helping me to navigate this research, and the last several years of my degree. I would like to thank Dr. Leanne ten Brinke for her selfless support and invaluable mentorship throughout the entirety of my graduate training. I cannot imagine having a better academic role model; your aptitude for teaching and passion for research is always awe-inspiring and I’m so thankful for your willingness to share that with me.

I am grateful for the unwavering support of my committee members, Drs. Jan Cioe and

Lesley Lutes. Their mentorship, belief in my ability, and willingness to go to bat for me throughout all stages of my training was a constant motivator to continue to grow my expertise as a psychologist. I also would like to thank Joe Lanaway for his aid in collecting the data for

Study 3; this study would not have been possible without his commitment to the project.

I cannot adequately put into words the recognition that Neil deserves for his role in my completion of this degree. I am eternally indebted to him for his unwavering belief in my ability to achieve my goals. I love you a million. I also would like to acknowledge my family – Mom,

Dad, and Karen; words cannot express the gratitude I feel for your constant love and support, and willingness to answer the phone, over the past decade. Alysha, Tara, Lee, Leanne, and Wayne: this degree could not, and would not, have been done without your friendship, phone calls, and frequent provision of hot meals.

Finally, I must thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

(SSHRC) for their financial support throughout my doctoral degree.

xii

Dedication

To Neil, family, and friends who have become family; all of whom made this possible.

xiii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The term schadenfreude was coined to capture the feeling of malicious pleasure that follows from witnessing another person suffer a misfortune (Heider, 1958). Schadenfreude is a positive and enjoyable affective response experienced by people of all ages and across all cultures (see Sawada & Hayama, 2012; Schindler, Körner, Bauer, Hadji, & Rudolph, 2015;

Schulz, Rudolph, Tscharaktschiew, & Rudolph, 2013; Shamay-Tsoory, Ahronberg-

Kirschenbaum, & Bauminger-Zviely, 2014; Steinbeis & Singer, 2013). It is commonly felt following the passive observation of either minor (e.g., spilling a drink, stubbing a toe, missing a bus) or major (car accident, losing a job, losing a romantic partner) misfortunes. Schadenfreude differs from the sadistic pleasure derived from inflicting pain on others (Smith, 2013), although, there is evidence that the enjoyment that results from schadenfreude can lead people to seek out opportunities to view the misfortunes of others (e.g., “YouTube fails,” reality television, or

America’s Funniest Home Video clips; see Porter, Bhanwer, Woodworth, & Black, 2014; van

Dijk, Ouwerkerk, van Koningsbruggen, & Wesseling, 2012; Watanabe, 2016). However, due to the unsavoury circumstances from which people derive this pleasure, schadenfreude often is considered a negative, socially undesirable response, which can make it a difficult area to study

(McNamee, 2003).

To date, much of the research in this area has focused on the intra- and interpersonal antecedents of schadenfreude (see Feather, Wenzel, & McKee, 2013). This early research has contributed to developments in, and understanding of, the relevant correlates of schadenfreude, such as affected cognitions, emotions, and neurophysiology. However, little is known about the influence of schadenfreude on behaviour and the nature of the downstream consequences of this affective experience. With little research directly testing the effects of schadenfreude on subsequent behaviour, conflicting theories about the behavioural consequences of this emotional

experience remain (see Cikara, 2015; Smith, 2013). As schadenfreude is a common, universal emotional response (see Sawada & Hayama, 2012; Schulz et al., 2013; Steinbeis & Singer,

2013), additional research to better understand the behavioural consequences of this emotion is warranted. The current research situates the past research on schadenfreude in an evolutionary theory framework and tests novel hypotheses about the antecedents and consequences of this emotional experience.

1.1 Definition of Emotion

Emotions are defined as automatic and involuntary responses to internal and external events (Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1992; Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 2014). They are theorized to have both an intrapersonal and interpersonal function; they provide individuals with information necessary to resolve issues within themselves or within their relationships with others (see

Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1992). The subjective experience of emotion does not occur in isolation; it is part of a larger constellation of processes including cognitions, neurophysiological changes, communication of experience to others, and related behavioural actions (Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 1996; Scherer, 1986). These dynamic processes do not occur in a linear fashion; however, research has demonstrated that, typically, cognitive appraisals precede the subjective experience of emotion and the neurophysiological changes, communication of emotion and behaviours follow the affective experience (Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 2014).

1.1.1 The Emotion of Schadenfreude. Schadenfreude is a positively-valenced emotional experience in which the observer feels pleasure and happiness (see Cikara, Bruneau, & Saxe,

2011). Although it is a positive emotion, it has been differentiated from other positive emotions including trait happiness and gloating (see Jung, 2017; Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje,

2003; Leach, Spears, & Manstead, 2015). For example, gloating, which also is a positive emotion typically experienced at the expense of others (Paulus et al., 2018), differs from

schadenfreude in a number of ways including the features of the event that brought on the emotion, the appraisals that contributed to the emotion, and the manner in which the emotion is expressed (Paulus et al., 2018).

Schadenfreude also has been considered in relation to other emotions that result from witnessing the misfortunes of others, namely empathy and compassion (James, Kavanagh,

Jonason, Chonody, & Scrutton, 2014; Ouwerkerk, van Dijk, Vonkeman, & Spears, 2018;

Sawada & Hayama, 2012). Indeed, the typical emotional response towards those who are suffering is empathy (Preston & De Waal, 2002). Empathy allows people to identify and share the affective states of others and, as a result, predict others’ behaviour (Decety, 2015; Fuchsman,

2015; Gonzalez-Liencres, Shamay-Tsoory, & Brüne, 2013). Empathy can be dichotomized into cognitive and affective processes. Cognitive empathy is the ability to take the mental perspective of another, allowing the observer to make inferences about the emotions of a target and to understand how external stimuli (such as misfortunes) might affect him/her (Cox et al., 2012;

Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). Affective empathy is the capacity for an observer to share the emotional experiences of a target, such as having a negative emotional reaction to a misfortune that mirrors the target’s own response. Affective empathy results in the observer experiencing the associated cognitions, neurophysiological changes, communicative efforts, and behavioural consequences of the emotion that they are sharing with another (Cox et al., 2012; Decety, 2015;

Singer, 2006; Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012; Watt, 2007). As a result, the presence of cognitive and affective empathy typically promotes prosocial, helping behaviour (see Decety, 2015).

Generally, schadenfreude is inversely related to empathy (see Cikara, Bruneau, Van

Bavel, & Saxe, 2014; James et al., 2014; Sawada & Hayama, 2012), although it is clear that these are not two extremes of the same construct (see van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Wesseling, & von

Koningsbruggen, 2011). For example, van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, and Smith (2015) found only a

moderate negative correlation of -.23 between their measure of schadenfreude and sympathy

(i.e., affective empathy). As such, I propose that, in schadenfreude, cognitive empathy is present, as observers understand that targets are experiencing misfortunes that will have negative consequences, but affective empathy is absent, because they do not share the negative emotional repercussions of the event, such as fear or sadness, and instead experience joy, pleasure, or humour. This would explain the moderate relationship between empathy and schadenfreude reported by van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, and Smith (2015) and could have implications for the behavioural response to this emotion.

Schadenfreude is considered a moral, or partially moral emotion, because it is experienced in relation to the welfare of others (Haidt, 2003; Hareli & Parkinson, 2008). That is, schadenfreude is instigated by the evaluation of others and the subsequent observation of them experiencing a misfortune. Further, it is considered a discordant moral emotion because the experience of it is subjectively positive, but the expression of observable pleasure in response to a misfortune is detrimental to social relationships (Rudolph & Tscharaktschiew, 2014). Despite the negative impact on relationships, there is research to suggest that the experience of schadenfreude is not followed by other moral emotions, such as guilt, shame, or embarrassment, that might promote the reparation of the connection (Kristjánsson, 2006). As the subjective experience of malicious pleasure differs from typical happiness and the moral emotions, and is not the inverse of empathy, further investigation into this emotional experience and its correlates is warranted.

1.1.2 Cognitions. The manner in which events are perceived influences a person’s subsequent affective experience (see Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 2014). Much of the research on the schadenfreude response has explored the types of appraisals of the self and others that increase the likelihood of experiencing pleasure, rather than empathy, for others’ misfortunes

(see van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Smith, & Cikara, 2015 for a review). Schadenfreude is felt for both recognized targets and strangers (see Cikara, 2015; Colyn & Gordon, 2013) but often is felt more strongly towards targets known to an observer. This extends to both individuals known personally and recognized public figures for whom an observer has background information.

This is because schadenfreude appears to stem from the conclusions drawn from social comparisons, the natural urge to compare oneself to others, and to evaluate one’s abilities and social standing in comparison to another (Dvash, Gilam, Ben-Ze’ev, Hendler, & Shamay-Tsoory,

2010; Festinger, 1954; Fiske, 2010; Jankowski & Takahashi, 2014; Lange, Weidman, & Crusius,

2018; Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009; Tesser & Campbell, 1982; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Smith, &

Cikara, 2015). Such a social comparison then informs the observers’ self-esteem and self-worth, often resulting in a decrease in these constructs if he/she deems him/herself to be of lower social standing or an increase if he/she perceive him/herself to be of a higher social standing (Gao et al., 2014; Taylor & Lobel, 1989; Wood, 1989). This is particularly true if the comparison is on a domain that is relevant to the observer (e.g., academic success to a student; see self-evaluation maintenance model (SEM); Pleban & Tesser, 1981; Tesser & Campbell, 1982).

Lowered self-esteem and self-worth derived from these comparisons, often referred to as the pain of inferiority, has been linked to defensive actions to protect the ego, such as by distancing the self from the target or derogating the target (Fein & Spencer, 1997; Tesser &

Campbell, 1982). Another potential defensive mechanism is the experience of schadenfreude, and there is a growing body of evidence to support this link. For example, observers experience increased schadenfreude in response to the misfortunes of targets who are perceived as more successful and higher in status than the observer (Feather et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2014; Leach &

Spears, 2008; Takahashi et al., 2009). This malicious pleasure is likely the result of the self- esteem boost and the diminished threat to the ego that occurs when a person perceived to be

superior suffers a misfortune, losing his or her social status, and returning to a status closer to that of the observer (Brambilla & Riva, 2017; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, et al., 2011; van Dijk, van

Koningsbruggen, Ouwerkerk, & Wesseling, 2011; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, et al., 2012). To date, research suggests that observers might feel schadenfreude for a target following a misfortune if the observers feel envy or resentment towards the target or if they feel the target is deserving of the misfortune (see Smith, Powell, Combs, & Schurtz, 2009 for a review).

The results of earlier research suggested that envy, a negative emotion that occurs when people perceive that another is superior to them based on their abilities, achievements, or characteristics, is an antecedent to feelings of schadenfreude (Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Cohen-

Charash, 2009; Smith et al., 1996). Simple paradigms in which schadenfreude is experienced for tall poppies (i.e., those whose talents or qualities increase their perceived status) have demonstrated a clear link between envy for these superior individuals and feelings of schadenfreude when they suffer (see Brigham, Kelso, Jackson, & Smith, 1997; Smith et al.,

1996). An example of this phenomenon can be found in the gratification derived from the downfall of celebrities. Consider Tiger Woods, a world-renowned pro-golfer with million-dollar endorsement deals and a “perfect” family life – until the news of his numerous affairs broke in

2009. Up until that point, unless the observer was equally talented and wealthy, direct social comparison with Tiger Woods was likely to induce feelings of envy, especially for other golfers

(for whom the comparison was particularly relevant; see SEM model, Tesser & Campbell, 1982).

As such, when his infidelity became public and he lost his endorsement deals and family, the general public, mass media, and other golfers in particular, delighted in his downfall – in other words, they experienced schadenfreude (see Smith, 2013).

However, more recent research suggests that the relationship between envy and schadenfreude is not so simple. There are two types of envy, hostile and benign, one that is

related to schadenfreude, and one that is not (Feather & Nairn, 2005; Greenier, 2018; van de Ven et al., 2014; van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009). Hostile envy is associated with feelings of resentment and anger towards targets following an appraisal that the target did not deserve his/her achievements whereas benign envy is related to feelings of admiration for individuals who are perceived to have earned their high status or resources (Feather et al., 2013). Not surprisingly, solely hostile envy is linked to the schadenfreude response (Feather et al., 2013; van de Ven et al., 2014).

Similar to hostile envy is resentment, which is defined as an emotion that follows from the belief that a target undeservedly received some benefit that is desirable to the observer

(Pietraszkiewicz & Wojciszke, 2014; Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994). Resentment is believed to differ from envy in that it is preceded by an appraisal of injustice and proceeded by a different form of communication; it often is displayed publicly compared to the more private expression of envy (Feather & Sherman, 2002). The subsequent feeling of schadenfreude is then conceptualized as a positive reaction to an event that rights the injustice (e.g., a punishment; see

Chester et al., 2013). Research has shown that resentment often predicts feelings of schadenfreude over and above feelings of envy (Feather et al., 2013; Feather & Nairn, 2005;

Feather & Sherman, 2002).

A related cognition that influences experiences of schadenfreude is perceived deservingness (Berndsen, Tiggemann, & Chapman, 2017; Brambilla & Riva, 2017; Powell &

Smith, 2013; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Goslinga, 2009; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, &

Nieweg, 2005); specifically, the degree to which targets are believed to be undeserving of their superior status (Piskorz & Piskorz, 2009), and thus, deserving of a misfortune to reduce their status. Research has demonstrated a relationship between hostile envy and resentment to deservingness, respectively, in expressions of schadenfreude because these first two negative

emotions are driven by the appraisal that targets are not deserving of their achievements and success (Feather et al., 2013). For example, in a study manipulating deservingness specifically, participants were assigned to either a low, neutral, or high achiever status and then rated the failure of a high achiever who either deserved or did not deserve his success (Feather, 2008). The results indicated that observers reported increased schadenfreude for the target who did not deserve his success, and that the observers assigned to be “low achievers” experienced the most schadenfreude (Feather, 2008). This is likely due to the larger gap in achievement, and an upward social comparison that spurred increased hostile envy and resentment, ultimately resulting in increased pleasure when the target lost his status.

Cognitive appraisals of others are not limited to the individual; there is evidence that perceptions of groups of people, and group memberships, influence the likelihood of experiencing schadenfreude. An ingroup is a social group with whom a person identifies whereas an outgroup is a social group with whom a person does not identify (see Cikara, 2015; Cikara &

Van Bavel, 2014). A wealth of research has demonstrated that feelings of schadenfreude are dramatically increased for members of, or even supporters of, outgroups (e.g., Cikara, 2015;

Cikara et al., 2014; Cikara & Van Bavel, 2014). This pattern has been found in supporters and members of opposing political parties (Combs, Powell, Schurtz, & Smith, 2009; Leach & Spears,

2009), rival sports teams (Hoogland et al., 2015; Leach et al., 2003), and other, arbitrary outgroups (Cikara et al., 2014). Social comparison also plays a role in this dynamic, as people often compare their ingroups to outgroups in a manner similar to how they compare themselves to other individuals. As a result, the status and success of an ingroup plays a role in individuals’ self-perception and self-esteem, and in turn, their reactions to the misfortunes that befall those in an outgroup (Smith, 2013).

1.1.3 Neurophysiology. As with all emotions, the affective state of schadenfreude has a unique neurophysiological response. Several studies have noted an increase in activation in the ventral striatum, a critical area in the brain’s reward circuitry, following the presentation of envied others experiencing misfortunes that resulted in cognitive (e.g., boost in self-esteem) or tangible (e.g., monetary) gain for the observer (see Cikara, Botvinick, & Fiske, 2011; Cikara &

Fiske, 2011; Singer, 2006; Takahashi et al., 2009). Most recently, Paulus et al. (2018) studied the neurophysiology of the brain during the experience of both schadenfreude and empathy using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The researchers presented 34 participants with

40 drawings of unknown targets in situations that threatened their social integrity and then asked them to focus on either their vicarious embarrassment (i.e., affective empathy) or their schadenfreude for the target. The results replicated earlier studies that highlighted the importance of the ventral striatum in the schadenfreude response and identified additional regions of the brain that are involved in both the schadenfreude and empathy responses, including the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which is involved in understanding others’ thoughts, intentions, and experiences, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which is involved in representing self and others’ affective experiences. Interestingly, whereas there was an increase in anterior insula (AI) activity in the empathy response, it was lessened in the schadenfreude response; the AI is involved in cognitive appraisals of social standing and fairness (see Beeney, Franklin, Levy, &

Adams, 2011; Singer, 2006). These results support the notion that appraisals of others’ experiences (cognitive empathy) and mirroring others’ affective experiences (affective empathy) play a critical, but differing, role in schadenfreude and empathy. Further, this study offers physiological evidence for the importance of social comparisons in the experience of schadenfreude.

There also is evidence for involuntary changes resulting from the experience of schadenfreude that are observable (e.g., Porter et al., 2014). In 2012, Cikara and Fiske presented participants with a misfortune befalling a target who was described as being high in status (e.g., an upward social comparison) and competitive, and measured participants’ facial reactions. They found evidence for activation of the zygomaticus major muscle, a muscle that turns the corners of the mouth up to produce a smile. To expand on this, Boecker, Likowski, Pauli, and Weyers

(2015) presented 32 male fans of the German soccer team with videos of members of the

German team (ingroup) successfully taking a penalty shot and of members of the Dutch team

(outgroup) missing penalty shots and concurrently measured activation of four muscles in the face using electromyography. Similar to Cikara and Fiske (2012), their results revealed activation of the zygomaticus major muscle and also activation of the orbicularis occuli, a muscle around the eye that, in conjunction with the zygomaticus major, creates a genuine expression of happiness. Indeed, the authors could not differentiate the facial expressions of schadenfreude from the expressions of joy displayed following the German team’s goals.

Further, they provided additional support that schadenfreude is purely a positive affective experience by confirming the lack of activation of facial muscles involved in expressions of anger during the experience of malicious pleasure.

1.1.4 Communication. A critical component of the emotional experience is the capacity to convey the subjective experience to others in an attempt to elicit reciprocal emotions, and/or behavioural responses (Van Kleef, 2009; Van Kleef, Van Doorn, Heerdink, & Koning, 2011).

Schadenfreude has been deemed a social emotion because it arises as a result of social appraisals; specifically, direct comparison of the self (observer) to the target prior to the target experiencing a misfortune (Dvash & Shamay-Tsoory, 2011; Hareli & Parkinson, 2008;

Parkinson & Manstead, 2015). Social emotions are believed to maintain individual social

relationships but also regulate social hierarchies (see Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Niedenthal &

Brauer, 2012). In line with the social functional approach of emotions, it has been proposed that the schadenfreude response results from appraisals of social hierarchies and aids efforts to influence the hierarchy; that is, observers feel schadenfreude when they feel the pain of inferiority and communicate their schadenfreude in an effort to reduce the power of those they deem superior. To be detrimental to the target’s power in a social environment, it would be critical to be able to communicate one’s joy about the misfortune to others in the environment

(see Lange, Blatz, & Crusius, in press).

To date, however, little research has explored the manner in which schadenfreude is communicated to others. Lange and Boecker (2018) found some support for the social functional theory of schadenfreude in a series of studies that provided evidence for a willingness to smile publicly following the observation of a misfortune befalling an envied target. Further, their participants reported that the target was perceived as less dominant after others had expressed joy at his/her misfortune. In a study involving the experience of schadenfreude following upward social comparisons, Dasborough and Harvey (2017) demonstrated evidence that participants communicated their experience of schadenfreude following a misfortune that was deemed to be deserved by a fellow employee. They proposed that schadenfreude was adapted as a functional emotion because communicating schadenfreude following a poor decision in the workplace helped to identify and decrease the status of the transgressor amongst his/her colleagues while defining appropriate and acceptable behavior in that environment.

1.1.5 Behaviour. The motivation to act is generated by psychological mechanisms including cognitive appraisals and subjective affective states (Cosmides & Tooby, 2013). Little research has been conducted to date to explore the action urges that are instigated and regulated by the emotional experience of schadenfreude. Some have speculated that schadenfreude and its

concurrent lack of empathy exacerbate the negative emotions derived from social comparison and allow the observer to continue to act in a manner that is harmful to the relationship, to the degree that they may act antisocially (see Cikara, 2015; Cikara & Fiske, 2012; Leach & Spears,

2009; Smith, 2013). This might result in an act of aggression, such as a physical attack, but it also might take the form of submissive- or passive-aggression, such as not helping the target or allowing him/her to experience additional misfortunes. There is preliminary evidence in the study of in- and outgroup behaviour to suggest that schadenfreude is linked to subsequent harming behaviour (see Cikara, 2015; Cikara et al., 2011; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Despite a lack of evidence for the direct relationship between schadenfreude and aggression, there is a great deal of research to show that aggression has been closely linked to the variables that induce schadenfreude, such as negative mood, envy, resentment, a threatened ego, seeking increased status or resources, and reduced self-esteem (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman,

Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001; Bushman et al., 2009; Buss & Dedden, 1990; Campbell, 1993;

Cikara, 2015; Griskevicius et al., 2009; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; Smith, 2013).

Conversely, others have suggested that experiencing the pleasure associated with schadenfreude (and the potential redistribution of power or the feeling that justice was served following the misfortunes) improves affect, increases self-esteem (van Dijk, van

Koningsbruggen, et al., 2011), and diminishes the aggression-related urges that arose from the social comparison. This, in turn, might result in a more positive view of the target and subsequent pro-social behaviour (see Smith, 2013). Indeed, increased self-esteem has been negatively correlated to aggression (Crocker & Park, 2004; Scheff & Fearon, 2004). Further, although schadenfreude is related to a potentially brief reduction in affective empathy, people typically demonstrate affective empathy towards those who are suffering and are averse to

harming others (Cikara et al., 2014; Crockett, Kurth-Nelson, Siegel, Dayan, & Dolan, 2014;

Cushman, Gray, Gaffey, & Mendes, 2012; Fuchsman, 2015).

To begin to address the outstanding questions about the influence of schadenfreude on behaviour, two studies were recently conducted to explore this relationship. Lange and Boecker

(2018) found evidence for downstream behavioural consequences following the experience of schadenfreude; in particular, observers’ willingness to laugh publicly and some support for their willingness to cheat on a competitive task. Further, they demonstrated that public displays of schadenfreude (pointing and laughing) communicated to others that the target no longer possessed the dominance that he/she once did and that, once observers perceived the target to have lost dominance, they felt emboldened and willing to proactively take more of the available resources for themselves. Further, Ouwerkerk et al. (2018) explored behavioural consequences following the experience of schadenfreude for a consumer-based outgroup. They presented

Blackberry phone users with a falsified news article describing growing problems with Apple iPhones and found that observers with stronger identification as a Blackberry user (affiliation with ingroup), hostile feelings towards Apple users (outgroup), and an interest in cellular phones reported increased schadenfreude for this misfortune. Participants also were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would tell others about the problems with iPhones described in the news article. The results revealed that as the subjective experience of schadenfreude increased, the more likely observers were to share negative news about the outgroup with others. These studies provide preliminary support for the theory that the schadenfreude response may result in behaviour that is detrimental to relationships, including openly laughing, taking resources from the affected target, and spreading the word about the misfortunes, in an effort to continue to reduce the status of the target.

1.1.6 Summary of Schadenfreude as an Emotional Experience. Emotions, including schadenfreude, are comprised of unique cognitive, affective, and behavioural components that are driven by the subjective or shared function of the experience. To date, much of the research on the emotion of schadenfreude has explored the effect of antecedent cognitive appraisals, but with little guidance from an over-arching theory. There also is growing research on the neurophysiological changes and methods of communication comprising this emotion. However, one critical element of the constellation of experiences that forms an emotion is an understanding of the behaviours that follow from this subjective experience. The current research employs an evolutionary theory framework to better understand how social comparisons influence the experience of schadenfreude, and to form hypotheses about likely behavioural consequences of this affective experience.

1.2 Organizing the Study of Schadenfreude Using Evolutionary Theory

All of the appraisals that precede schadenfreude have a common theme: competition

(Leach & Spears, 2008). This underlying drive to constantly be comparing oneself to other individuals and outgroups is a result of millions of years of evolution (Choi & Bowles, 2007).

Evolutionary theory rests on the foundation that human behaviour is the result of continuous adaptations to maximize the survival of the species, and some believe that competition was the impetus for adaptation (Buss, 2005). Humans originally competed against one another for food, shelter, and mates. Social comparison afforded observers the opportunity to assess their own status and identify potential competitors (Buss, 2005). This direct comparison reveals the status and the amount of resources that targets possess, and if they are found to hold a higher status or increased resources, the observer often experiences a threat to the ego through lowered self- esteem, and increased envy, and resentment (e.g., Bushman et al., 2009; Hill & Buss, 2008). One

particularly salient domain of competition is the effort to find and retain desirable mates, which resulted in unique dimensions of comparison within and across each gender (Buss, 2005).

1.2.1 Gender Differences in Social Comparison for Mate Competition. Trivers’

(1972) Parental Investment Theory (PIT) postulated that men and women have evolved different reproductive strategies to compensate for the differences in required investment to successfully produce offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad, Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005).

Whereas women bear a heavy burden in carrying, birthing, and rearing a child, men are not required to invest in this same way; as a result, each gender seeks differing attributes in a sexual partner (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad et al., 2005; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Lisenmeier,

2002).

In line with Sexual Strategies Theory (SST), women seek sexual partners with power and status, comprised of dominance over others and financial resources, that allows for them to provide for the offspring in such a way that would increase their chance of survival (i.e., food, shelter, money; Buss, 2005). The preference for mates with higher resource potential is a cornerstone of evolutionary psychology and has been found across multiple cultures and socio- economic brackets (Buss, 1989, 1991; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005). For example,

Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, and Trost (1990) reported that female participants rated intelligence and earning capacity as the most important traits in long-term relationship partners. Further, Coats,

Harrington, Beaubouef, and Locke (2012) found that women were more likely to regret missed dating opportunities with men who were wealthy, but not with men who were relatively poor.

Conversely, SST posits that men seek sexual partners with specific physical attributes as a proxy measure of physical fitness to ensure the survival of their offspring (Buss, 2005; Gangestad et al.,

2005). Research has demonstrated that men perceive clear skin, lustrous hair, and a 0.7 waist-to- hip ratio, among other features, as physically attractive because they signify physical health and

fertility (Symons, 1995). The male preference for physically attractive female mates also has been found across numerous studies that have explored this phenomenon (see Buss, 1989, 1991;

Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Shackelford et al., 2005).

The attributes that are deemed attractive in the opposite gender form the basis of comparison and competition within each gender. That is, women compare themselves to other women on features of physical attractiveness as that is the focus of male desire and men compare themselves to other men on elements related to resources, including social status and financial resources, as that is what women evaluate in a prospective partner. Considering the role of social comparison on domains that are particularly salient to the observer (e.g., SEM model; Tesser &

Campbell, 1982) on subsequent schadenfreude, these theories would suggest that the gender of the observer and the target, and the nature of the misfortune, would have a significant impact on the schadenfreude response.

1.2.2 Schadenfreude, Gender, and Misfortune Type. In 2013, Colyn and Gordon conducted the first study to explore the theory of schadenfreude as a mate-value tracking mechanism, suggesting that observers’ own mate value increases as a direct result of the decrease in mate value of their close friends. Mate value was operationalized as the dimensions on which each gender is evaluated as a potential mate: physical appearance for women and social status for men. Across two studies, Colyn and Gordon (2013) hypothesized that participants would experience increased schadenfreude for same-sex friends who suffered misfortunes that decreased their gender-driven mate value. In the first study, they asked participants to describe the circumstances of an incident in which they felt schadenfreude for a same or opposite gender friend and then report the degree to which they would enjoy each of 23 described misfortunes if they occurred to same or opposite gender friends. The narrative descriptions of a friend’s misfortune did not reveal notable differences in schadenfreude for specific misfortune types

related to gender. However, the reported schadenfreude for the 23 misfortune descriptions revealed that, in line with their predictions, female participants reported more pleasure at the thought of same gender (vs. opposite gender) friends experiencing misfortunes that diminished their physical appearance. The hypothesized trends for male participants were not significant; instead, they found that men also reported more schadenfreude for physical appearance compared to status-related misfortunes for same gender friends.

In their second study, Colyn and Gordon (2013) asked participants to imagine a close friend of the same gender experiencing one of two misfortunes, either (a) gaining 25 lbs around the waist or (b) failing two college courses. Participants generally reported more schadenfreude for the physical appearance diminishing compared to social status diminishing misfortune. As in

Study 1, female participants reported more schadenfreude when their same gender friend suffered a physical attractiveness compared to a social status-related misfortune, but men did not report differing levels of schadenfreude when friends suffered misfortunes that reduced physical appearance versus social status. The authors concluded that schadenfreude may function as a mate-value tracking mechanism within female friendships, but that the results did not extend to male friendships as predicted. They called for further research to explore whether social status is central to the mate value of male undergraduate students and to further explore the role of gender and misfortune type in the schadenfreude response.

van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, and Smith (2015) sought to resolve these limitations and extend this line of research in their own two-part study. In their first study, they asked undergraduate students to identify the dimensions on which they evaluated the mate value of the opposite gender. Statistically, the responses grouped into three factors including: (a) physical appearance,

(b) social status, and (c) financial status. Female participants rated social status as the most important of the three whereas male participants rated physical appearance as the most

important; women reported financial status as more important than did men. Findings were contrary to the suggestion made by Colyn and Gordon (2013) that social status was not a relevant component of mate value assessments among undergraduate students and provided additional support for the continued use of these factors as the basis for manipulating misfortune type.

In their second study, van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, and Smith (2015) modified Colyn and

Gordon’s (2013) methodology and presented participants with vignettes of either physical appearance diminishing or social status diminishing misfortunes befalling an acquaintance of same or opposite gender. They provided 186 undergraduates with a vignette that asked them to imagine attending a high school reunion and observing an admired former classmate presenting a speech that did not resonate with the audience. They described the target as either no longer attractive, badly clothed, and having gained weight (physical appearance diminishing) or as telling embarrassing jokes and not being successful after having left high school (social status diminishing), and then asked participants to report their degree of schadenfreude and sympathy.

The results revealed that female participants experienced more schadenfreude following physical appearance diminishing misfortunes befalling female targets and male participants reported more schadenfreude following a male target experiencing a social status-related misfortune. The inverse results were not found for self-reported sympathy, providing additional evidence that schadenfreude and sympathy are related, but distinct, emotional reactions following the observation of a misfortune. This study provided additional support for the use of evolutionary theory as an organizational tool to comprehensively consider all elements of the emotion of schadenfreude and as a guiding principle for future schadenfreude research.

These studies (Colyn & Gordon, 2013; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Smith, 2015) initiated research into the schadenfreude response using well-validated evolutionary principles. The first study (Colyn & Gordon, 2013) asked participants to imagine a misfortune befalling a friend and

the second study (van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Smith, 2015) provided participants with a vignette of depicting a misfortune occurring to an acquaintance. Each study only had one social comparison condition, upwards, providing information on only one aspect of self-evaluation in comparison to others. This leaves unanswered questions about the relevance of gender of target and misfortune type factors for the experience of schadenfreude for unknown targets and targets who are perceived as similar (i.e., lateral social comparison), or worse off (i.e., downward social comparison), to the observer. Further, these studies employed relatively benign misfortunes, such as gaining weight, telling embarrassing jokes, tripping in front of the opposite gender, and poor dress, to test the effect of misfortune type on schadenfreude; there is little research to understand whether malicious pleasure is experienced following more severe misfortunes.

Further, while these studies (Colyn & Gordon, 2013; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Smith,

2015) provided more information about the role of cognitive appraisals and the influence of misfortune type on schadenfreude, they did not address the impact that the emotional reaction had on subsequent behaviour. Considering the proposed evolutionary framework, a behavioural response to alleviate the pain of inferiority and the stress of competition would be adaptive (Hill

& Buss, 2008). Recent studies have provided some support for the notion that the behavioural response that follows from schadenfreude are actions to further reduce the status and/or resources of the target and communicate that the target has lost his/her envied status (e.g., Lange

& Boecker, 2018), but further evaluation of the nature of this adaptive behavioural response is required to comprehensively understand the nature and relevance of this emotion.

1.3 Overview of the Present Dissertation

This three-study dissertation sought to replicate and extend the previous findings of the evolutionarily-driven function of schadenfreude as an emotion that derives from social comparisons. Additionally, it sought to examine schadenfreude in response to severe misfortunes

related to a relevant interpersonal dimension, mate value, with unknown targets (Study 1).

Further, this dissertation sought to explore novel elements of this emotional experience including the effect of witnessing repeated misfortunes befall a single target (Study 2) and the influence of schadenfreude on subsequent behaviour (Study 3).

Chapter 2: Pilot Study

2.1 Overview

Given that research into the influence of misfortune type on the experience of schadenfreude is novel, stimuli had to be created for use in these studies. The purpose of the pilot study was to create, test, and select the misfortunes to be used as stimuli in the subsequent studies. Sixteen vignettes were developed to depict various misfortunes that would negatively affect either a target’s physical appearance (8 vignettes) or his/her social standing (e.g., resources or reputation; 8 vignettes; see Appendix A). Target gender was not specified in these vignettes.

The goal of the pilot study was to select four misfortunes (2 appearance-related and 2 resource- related) that were perceived as severe and likely would provoke strong emotional reactions from participants.

2.2 Participants

The participants were 51 undergraduate students, 38 who identified as women (M = 21.79 years, SD = 2.89) and 13 who identified as men (M = 21.77 years, SD = 4.02) from the

University of British Columbia Okanagan campus. Caucasian students made up 71.3% of the sample, 15.9% of the sample identified as Asian, 2.6% as Aboriginal, and 10.2% of the sample identified as other. In relation to sexual orientation, 91% of the sample identified as heterosexual, 1.2% as homosexual, 7% as bisexual, and 0.9% as other.

2.3 Materials and Procedure

Participants were recruited via convenience sampling and the Department of

Psychology’s SONA Research subject pool; data were collected via an online survey platform.

Following informed consent, participants were presented with misfortune vignettes.

2.3.1 Misfortune Vignettes. In line with the theory of schadenfreude as a product of competition, and to test the potentially adaptive nature of schadenfreude, the misfortunes were

developed to test evolutionary-relevant characteristics of male and female victims. Sixteen misfortune vignettes were created, eight depicting incidents that would negatively influence a person’s physical attractiveness, theoretically more detrimental to female targets, and eight describing circumstances that would negatively influence a person’s social or financial standing, theoretically more detrimental to male targets, which, subsequently, renders him or her less of a competitor for romantic relationships (and thus, reproduction - derived from Sexual Strategies

Theory; Buss, 2005).

Following the presentation of each misfortune vignette, participants first rated the scenario on the degree to which the misfortune would affect physical attractiveness and social status, each on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely). These questions were included to ensure selection of misfortunes that accurately depicted the proposed domains of diminished physical attractiveness and diminished social status and resources.

Participants then rated the description of the scenario on severity and intensity, respectively, also using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely) for each. Finally, participants completed a demographics form that included questions about their gender, age, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

2.4 Results

The means and standard deviations for the questions (“How much would this misfortune affect the target’s physical attractiveness?” and “How much would this misfortune affect a target’s social status?”) were calculated to identify the misfortunes that most closely represented each of diminished physical attractiveness and diminished status misfortune types (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). Vignettes seven (M = 5.56, SD = 1.03) and eight (M = 6.24,

SD = 0.90) were rated as most likely to affect physical attractiveness. Vignette seven depicted a target who began to lose his/her hair and, ultimately, was diagnosed with alopecia and informed

that he/she would lose all of the hair on his/her body. Vignette eight described a target who was burned in a house fire caused by a candle that he/she left unattended (see Appendix A for more detail). Vignettes nine (M = 5.04, SD = 1.41) and fourteen (M = 5.72, SD = 1.13) were rated as most likely to affect a target’s social status. Vignette nine depicted a target who was caught lying to friends about being selected to go on stage at a concert and vignette fourteen described a target who lost his/her scholarship after being caught cheating on a test.

Once the vignettes that best represented each of these misfortune types were established, efforts were made to ensure that they were matched on severity and intensity (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). The mean severity and intensity for vignettes seven (severity: M

= 5.52, SD = 1.11 and intensity: M = 5.22, SD = 1.62) and eight (severity: M = 6.80, SD = 0.71 and intensity: M = 6.65, SD = 0.81), the two diminished physical attractiveness misfortunes, were calculated; vignette eight (burns) was rated as slightly more severe and intense than vignette seven (hair loss). The combined means for each of severity and intensity were calculated for the physical attractiveness diminishing vignettes (severity: M = 6.20, SD = 0.71 and intensity:

M = 5.99, SD = 0.98), each of these means was compared to a value of 4, the midpoint of the 7- point Likert scale, using one-sample t tests; the results indicate that each of these means falls significantly above the midpoint, severity: t(47) = 20.93, p < .001 and intensity: t(47) = 13.11, p

< .001.

There was more discrepancy between the mean severity and intensity for the diminished status misfortunes, vignettes nine (severity: M = 3.58, SD = 1.73 and intensity: M = 3.56, SD =

1.89) and fourteen (severity: M = 6.32, SD = 0.74 and intensity: M = 5.84, SD = 1.27). As vignette nine (caught in a lie) was rated as lower on severity and intensity than the other three vignettes, measures were taken to maintain the nature of the misfortune while increasing the severity of the consequences. To do so, the results for severity and intensity for the other

vignettes that described misfortunes that diminished status were explored. Vignette fifteen, which depicted a target who was fired from his/her job and, as a result, lost his/her only source of income, was rated most severe (M = 5.32, SD = 1.35) and intense (M = 4.70, SD = 1.63). As such, elements of vignettes nine and fifteen were combined to depict a misfortune in which a target was caught lying to his/her colleagues and was fired from his/her job as a result, with the intent to maintain the content of the misfortune while increasing its severity and intensity (see

#17, Appendix A for the combined misfortune vignette). Given that both of the diminished status misfortunes depicted a loss of financial resources, this misfortune type will henceforth be described as diminished resources misfortunes. The combined means for each of severity and intensity were calculated for the resource diminishing vignettes (severity: M = 5.84, SD = 0.86 and intensity: M = 5.28, SD = 1.31) and each of these means was compared to a value of 4, the midpoint of the 7-poing Likert scale, using one-sample t tests; the results indicate that each of these means falls significantly above the midpoint, severity: t(48) = 15.23, p < .001 and intensity: t(48) = 6.87, p < .001.

2.5 Discussion

The results of this study allowed for the selection of four misfortunes for use in subsequent studies. The two misfortunes that were rated as most influencing physical attractiveness and the two that were identified as most detrimental to status were identified. The severity and intensity of each of these misfortunes was assessed and one vignette was modified to better match the elevated severity and intensity of the other three. Ultimately, the two misfortunes that best represented a loss of social status described circumstances in which a target’s financial resources were diminished (e.g., a target being caught cheating and losing a scholarship and a target being fired from a job). The misfortunes identified as most affecting

physical attractiveness depicted a target experiencing significant, permanent hair loss and a target suffering from severe burns across his/her body.

Chapter 3: Study 1

3.1 Overview

To date, little research has been done to explore the influence of misfortune type on the experience of schadenfreude. The goal of this first study was to compare the effect of misfortunes that diminish either appearance or financial resources for male versus female targets on the experience of schadenfreude and empathy. In line with previous research in this area, the descriptions of the targets who experienced misfortunes were also manipulated to induce social comparison (e.g., Feather et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2014), including downward and lateral comparisons in addition to the oft employed upward social comparison. It was predicted that participants would report increased schadenfreude for targets in the upward social comparison condition and less schadenfreude for targets in the downward social comparison condition.

Considering misfortune type, it was hypothesized that the effects would be driven by target gender such that female participants would experience increased schadenfreude for female targets who experienced physical appearance diminishing misfortunes and male participants would experience increased schadenfreude for male targets who experienced resource diminishing misfortunes. Further, it was predicted that this effect would be influenced by social comparison; schadenfreude would be further elevated for targets in the upward, rather than lateral or downward, social comparison conditions.

3.2 Participants

The participants were 212 undergraduate students, 164 who identified as women (M =

20.44 years, SD = 4.85), 46 who identified as men (M = 19.83 years, SD = 3.50), and 2 who identified as other (M = 21.5 years, SD = 0.71) from the University of British Columbia

Okanagan campus. Due to the small number of students who identified as male and other, there was not sufficient data to include them in the current analyses. As such, only data from female

participants were included in this study. Of the 164 women, 68.3% of the sample were

Caucasian, 18.9% of the sample was Asian, 1.2% identified as Aboriginal, and 11% of the sample identified as other. In relation to sexual orientation, 91.5% of the sample identified as heterosexual, 0.6% as homosexual, 4.9% as bisexual, and 2.4% identified as other. Students participated in the study in return for 1.5 course credits.

3.3 Materials and Procedure

3.3.1 Social Comparison Primes. Twelve social comparison primes (four for each of downward, lateral, and upward) were created based on known factors that influence ratings of schadenfreude (see Appendix B; e.g., Smith et al., 2009). In line with the SEM model (Pleban &

Tesser, 1981; Tesser & Campbell, 1982), primes were created to depict undergraduate students for whom social comparisons would be most salient. To induce a downward social comparison, vignettes depicted individuals with undeserved poverty or poor social status, to induce a lateral social comparison, vignettes described students with average wealth and social status, and to induce upward social comparison, the vignettes portrayed undergraduate students with undeserved wealth or elevated social status. They also were randomly assigned to one of two gender of target conditions, (a) male targets or (b) female targets. Target gender was manipulated by changing the name and pronouns used in the social comparison primes and misfortune vignettes.

3.3.2 Misfortune Vignettes. All participants were presented with the same four misfortune descriptions (within-subjects variable); these were determined via the aforementioned

pilot study. The chosen misfortune descriptions were comprised of two vignettes depicting misfortunes that negatively affected physical attractiveness (i.e., complete hair loss and severe burns) and two depicting misfortunes that negatively affected targets’ financial resources (i.e., loss of job and loss of scholarship). Each social comparison description was paired with a misfortune vignette to create four prime and misfortune pairs; each participant was presented with four social comparison primes (either four downward, four lateral, or four upward comparison primes; between subjects) that depicted either four different men or four different women (between-subjects) experiencing the same four misfortunes (two appearance-based and two resource-based; within-subjects). This resulted in a 3 (social comparison, between-subjects)

× 2 (target gender, between-subjects) × 2 (misfortune type, within-subjects) design. Following the presentation of each prime/misfortune pair, participants completed the Schadenfreude and

Empathy Evaluation Form.

3.3.3 Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form. This evaluation form is comprised of 10 questions that solicit information about subjective emotional responses to each misfortune vignette (Porter et al., 2014; see Appendix C). The five statements that comprised the assessment of schadenfreude included: (a) I felt pleasure while reading the scenario, (b) I found the scenario funny, (c) I enjoyed what happened to the person in the scenario, (d) I couldn’t resist a little smile at what happened in the scenario, and (e) I actually had to laugh a bit at the scenario. The five statements that comprised the empathy evaluation included: (a) I felt pain while reading the scenario, (b) I felt bad for the person in the scenario, (c) I felt sympathy for the person in the scenario, (d) I feel sorry for what happened to the person in the scenario, and (e) I empathize with (understand and share the feelings of) the person in the scenario. Participants were asked to rate their agreement to these statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Schadenfreude scores were derived by calculating the

mean score of the responses to the five statements related to positive emotional reactions and empathy scores were the mean of the five negative emotional response statements. This evaluation form has been deemed a reliable and valid measure in previous research; the

Cronbach’s alpha values for the five schadenfreude items (α = .86) and the five empathy items (α

= .90) fall in the high reliability range (Porter et al., 2014).

Finally, participants completed a demographics questionnaire, were debriefed, and thanked for their participation.

3.4 Results

3.4.1 Schadenfreude. A 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2

(target gender: male and female) × 2 (misfortune type: diminished physical attractiveness and diminished financial resources) mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run on the mean reported schadenfreude as measured by the Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form

(see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). The main effect of social comparison was significant, F(2, 158) = 13.50, p < .001, partial h2 = .15. A Tukey’s post-hoc analysis revealed that participants reported more schadenfreude for targets in the upward social comparison condition (M = 1.72, SE = 0.06) than for targets in the lateral (M = 1.30, SE = 0.08; p < .001, d =

0.85) and downward (M = 1.32, SE = 0.07; p < .001, d = 0.74) social comparison conditions; there was no difference in the amount of schadenfreude reported for targets in the downward versus lateral social comparison conditions, p = .97, d = 0.05. The main effect of target gender was not significant, F(1, 158) = 1.39, p = .24, partial h2 = .01.

The within-subjects main effect of misfortune type was significant, F(1, 158) = 108.04, p

< .001, partial h2 = .41; participants reported more schadenfreude for misfortunes that depicted a loss of financial resources (M = 1.70, SE = 0.06) compared to misfortunes that depicted a loss of

physical attractiveness (M = 1.20, SE = 0.04). All interactions were not significant, all ps > .05

(see Table 3 for interaction test statistics).

3.4.2 Empathy. A 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2 (target gender: male and female) × 2 (misfortune type: diminished physical attractiveness and diminished financial resources) mixed design ANOVA was run on the mean reported empathy as measured by the Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). The main effect of social comparison was significant, F(2, 158) = 23.38, p

< .001, partial h2 = .23. A Tukey’s post-hoc test indicated that participants reported less empathy for targets in the upward social comparison condition (M = 3.00, SE = 0.08) compared to targets in the lateral (M = 3.63, SE = 0.10; p < .001, d = 1.01) and downward (M = 3.77, SE = 0.09; p <

.001, d = 1.14) conditions. There was no difference in the amount of empathy reported for targets in the downward versus lateral social comparison conditions, p = .65, d = 0.24. The main effect of target gender was not significant, F(1, 158) = 1.22, p = .27, partial h2 = .008.

The within-subjects main effect of misfortune type was significant, F(1, 158) = 299.56, p

< .001, partial h2 = .66; participants reported more empathy for misfortunes that depicted a loss of physical attractiveness (M = 3.98, SE = 0.05) compared to misfortunes that depicted a loss of resources (M = 2.96, SE = 0.07). The interaction between social comparison condition and misfortune type also was significant, F(2, 158) = 3.23, p = .04, partial h2 = .04. This indicates that the amount of empathy reported across social comparison conditions differed as a result of the type of misfortune presented. To further analyze this interaction, simple main effects were used to compare the degree of empathy reported for each of the misfortune types individually across the three levels of social comparison. The one-way ANOVA that was conducted to examine differences in the amount of empathy reported for misfortunes that depicted diminished physical attractiveness across the three social comparison conditions was significant, F(2, 161) =

15.17, p < .001, partial h2 = .16. Tukey’s post-hoc analyses indicated that participants reported less empathy for participants in the upward social comparison condition (M = 3.58, SE = 0.09) than for participants in the lateral (M = 4.20, SE = 0.10; p < .001, d = 0.98) and downward (M =

4.16, SE = 0.09; p < .001, d = 0.80) conditions. There was no difference in the amount of empathy reported for targets in the downward versus lateral social comparison conditions, p =

.97, d = 0.06.

A second one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in the amount of empathy reported for misfortunes that depicted diminished financial resources across the three social comparison conditions; it also was significant, F(2, 161) = 22.13, p < .001, partial h2 =

.22. Tukey’s post-hoc tests revealed that participants reported less empathy for targets in the upward social comparison condition (M = 2.41, SE = 0.10) compared to targets in the lateral (M

= 3.10, SE = 0.12; p < .001, d = 0.84) and downward (M = 3.35, SE = 0.11; p < .001, d = 1.16) conditions. The amount of empathy reported did not differ between the lateral and downward conditions, p = .23, d = 0.34.

Paired-samples t tests were run to evaluate the difference in reported empathy for attractiveness-related versus resource-related misfortunes within each of the social comparison conditions. In the upward social comparison condition, participants reported more empathy for attractiveness-related misfortunes (M = 3.58, SD = 0.74) than resource-related misfortunes (M =

2.41, SD = 0.85), t(62) = 12.47, p < .001, r = .85. A similar trend was found in the lateral

(attractiveness: M = 4.20, SD = 0.51, resource: M = 3.09, SD = 0.76; t(44) = 10.20, p < .001, r =

.84) and downward (attractiveness: M = 4.16, SD = 0.71, resource: M = 3.35, SD = 0.77; t(55) =

8.43, p < .001, r = .75) social comparison conditions. The remaining interactions were not significant, all ps > .05 (see Table 4 for interaction test statistics).

3.4.3 Relationship Between Schadenfreude and Empathy. The bivariate correlation used to evaluate the relationship between schadenfreude (M = 1.47, SD = 0.53) and empathy (M

= 3.43, SE = 0.73) was significant, r = -.46, p < .001. This negative relationship indicates that as schadenfreude increases, empathy decreases and, conversely, that as schadenfreude decreases, empathy increases.

3.5 Discussion

Due to a small number of male participants, only data from female participants were analyzed in the current study. Analyses to evaluate the influence of social comparison, target gender, and misfortune type on schadenfreude and empathy were conducted. As predicted, a main effect of social comparison was found; participants reported more schadenfreude for targets in the upward social comparison condition compared to targets in the lateral and downward conditions. This is in line with previous research (see Feather et al., 2015; Takahashi et al.,

2009). There also was a main effect of misfortune type; participants reported more schadenfreude for resource-related misfortunes compared to misfortunes that depicted a decrease in physical attractiveness. The results also revealed a social comparison by misfortune type interaction, but follow-up analyses did not reveal trends beyond those identified by the main effects. Contrary to hypotheses, there was no target gender by misfortune type interaction; the gender of the target did not influence the degree of schadenfreude felt for diminished resource versus diminished physical attractiveness misfortunes by female participants.

Empathy was moderately, negatively correlated with schadenfreude and the outcome of analyses with the empathy response mirrored those for the schadenfreude response. That is, the main effects of social comparison and misfortune type were significant with an inverse pattern; empathy was increased for targets in the downward and lateral conditions and decreased for targets in the upward condition and participants reported more empathy for targets who suffered

a diminished physical attractiveness misfortune compared to one that diminished resources.

Given the moderate correlation, it is evident that schadenfreude and empathy are not the same construct; however, in the current study, manipulations of social comparison and misfortune type affect these emotional responses inversely. As analyses of empathy do not appear to yield any unique information, only the results of schadenfreude will be reported for the remainder of the studies.

Chapter 4: Study 2

4.1 Overview

If schadenfreude is derived from feelings of hostile envy or resentment, it is more likely that people will derive pleasure from misfortunes that befall known individuals (e.g., an envied co-worker). Many of the studies examining schadenfreude to date have presented participants with numerous targets, each experiencing a single misfortune, and then measuring the outcome.

Given that people are likely to be most concerned with their perception of social comparisons to known individuals, people with whom they are in contact with more than once, testing the emotional response to one target experiencing repeated misfortunes might provide additional insights into the schadenfreude response; that is precisely the goal of Study 2.

A paradigm identical to the one employed in Study 1 was used, with the exception that participants were presented with a single target who experienced four sequential misfortunes.

Similar to Study 1, it was hypothesized that participants would express more schadenfreude for a target in the upward social comparison condition and less schadenfreude for a target in the downward social comparison condition. It also was predicted that variations in misfortune type would be driven by a participant gender by target gender interaction; in particular, female participants would experience increased schadenfreude for a female target who experienced physical appearance diminishing misfortunes compared to a male target who experienced the same physical appearance-related misfortunes. Further, it was predicted that this effect would be influenced by social comparison; schadenfreude would be further elevated for targets in the upward, rather than lateral or downward, social comparison conditions. Finally, given that people are generally empathetic (Cikara et al., 2014), it was predicted that the schadenfreude response would diminish, following each subsequent misfortune, regardless of condition.

4.2 Participants

The participants were 96 undergraduate students who identified as female (M = 20.25 years, SD = 3.51) from the University of British Columbia Okanagan campus. Caucasian students made up 67.4% of the sample, 13.7% of the sample was Asian, 2.1% identified as

Aboriginal, and 16.8% of the sample identified as other. In relation to sexual orientation, 93.7% of the sample identified as heterosexual, 1.1% as homosexual, and 5.3% as bisexual. Students participated in the study in return for 1.5 course credits.

4.3 Materials and Procedure

Participants were recruited from the Department of Psychology’s SONA Research subject pool and data were collected via an online survey platform. After consenting to participate in the study, participants were randomly assigned on a between-subjects basis to one of three social prime conditions (a) downward social comparison, (b) lateral social comparison, or (c) upward social comparison and to one of two gender of target conditions, (a) male target or

(b) female target. In Study 2, each participant was presented with only one social comparison prime; it was chosen from the four social comparison primes employed for each level of comparison in Study 1 (see social comparison primes #4, 8, and 12, Appendix B). Participants were presented with a description of one individual (either a downward, lateral, or upward social comparison and either a male or a female target) and then told that this individual experienced four consecutive misfortunes; they were presented with the same four misfortunes used in Study

1 (presented in a randomized order) and completed the Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation

Form after the presentation of each misfortune vignette. As in Study 1, this resulted in a 3 (social comparison, between-subjects) × 2 (target gender, between-subjects) × 2 (misfortune type, within-subjects) design. Finally, participants completed a demographics questionnaire, were debriefed, and thanked for their participation.

4.4 Results

4.4.1 Schadenfreude. A 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2

(see Table 5 for means and standard deviations). The main effect of social comparison was significant, F(2, 90) = 5.88, p = .004, partial h2 = .12. A Tukey’s post-hoc analysis revealed that participants reported more schadenfreude for targets in the upward (M = 1.57, SE = 0.07) and lateral (M = 1.55, SE = 0.08) social comparison conditions compared to the downward condition

(M = 1.24, SE = 0.08), p = .02, d = 0.86, and p = .02, d = 0.79, respectively); the upward and lateral social comparison conditions were not significantly different from one another (p = 1.00, d = 0.04). The main effect of target gender was not significant, F(1, 90) = 0.71, p = .40, partial h2 = .008.

The within-subjects main effect of misfortune type was significant, F(1, 90) = 79.83, p <

.001, partial h2 = .47; participants reported more schadenfreude for misfortunes that depicted a loss of resources (M = 1.75, SE = 0.07) compared to misfortunes that depicted a loss of physical attractiveness (M = 1.16, SE = 0.04). All interactions were not significant, all ps > .05 (see Table

6 for interaction test statistics).

4.4.2 Schadenfreude for Repeated Misfortunes. To examine the impact of exposure to repeated misfortunes for a single target, the order in which participants were presented with each of the four misfortunes was recorded (see Table 7 for means and standard deviations). Given that the presentation order of the four misfortunes (two depicting diminished attractiveness and two depicting diminished resources) was randomized, misfortune type was not included as a variable in this analysis. As such, a 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2 (target

gender: male and female) × 4 (presentation order: first, second, third, and fourth) mixed design

ANOVA was conducted to assess for changes in the schadenfreude response across time.

Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, c2 (5) = 11.38, p < .05; therefore, multivariate tests are reported (e = .92). The main effect of presentation order was not significant, F(2.76, 248.29) = 2.16, p = .10, partial h2 = .02.

All interaction effects also were not significant (all ps > .05; see Table 8 for statistics); however, the hypothesized interaction between presentation order and social comparison condition was marginally significant, F(5.52, 248.29) = 1.88, p = .09, partial h2 = .04. As such, exploratory analyses were conducted to assess for trends in the change in schadenfreude across presentation order within each level of the social comparison condition. A series of paired- samples t tests revealed no notable changes in schadenfreude across presentation order within the downward and lateral social comparison conditions (all ps > .05). Within the upward social comparison condition, however, there was a significant reduction in reported schadenfreude from the first misfortune presented (M = 1.89, SD = 1.01) to the second (M = 1.39, SD = 0.71), t(36) =

2.36, p = .02, r = .37, the first to the third (M = 1.40, SD = 0.64), t(36) = 2.69, p = .01, r = .41, and the first to the fourth (M = 1.49, SD = 0.70), t(36) = 2.25, p = .03, r = .35. There were no differences in the amount of schadenfreude reported for misfortunes presented second versus third, t(36) = -0.07, p = .94, r = .01, or third versus fourth, t(36) = -0.69, p = .49, r = .11.

4.5 Discussion

This study partially replicated the results of Study 1; main effects of schadenfreude for social comparison and misfortune type were revealed. Whereas the pattern of schadenfreude for misfortune type remained the same (i.e., participants reported experiencing more schadenfreude for diminished resource compared to diminished physical attractiveness misfortunes), the pattern of schadenfreude responses differed across the social comparison conditions. In Study 2,

participants reported increased schadenfreude for targets in the upward and lateral conditions compared to targets in the downward condition. Again, there was no evidence of the predicted target gender by misfortune type interaction.

The nature of the schadenfreude response following several misfortunes also was assessed. Neither the main effects of social comparison nor target gender were significant, and only the social comparison by presentation order interaction term was marginally significant.

Exploratory follow-up analyses revealed a decrease in reported schadenfreude following the presentation of the first misfortune in the upward social comparison condition only; this suggests that participants experience increased schadenfreude for the initial misfortune but this response tapers for subsequent misfortunes. Of note, floor effects were observed in the schadenfreude response across all conditions. The mean schadenfreude for targets in the upward social comparison condition, for whom participants felt the strongest degree of schadenfreude, was

1.57 on a Likert-scale of 5. Due to the mean schadenfreude response being low, even for the first misfortune presented (1.89), it is difficult to accurately assess a possible decrease in schadenfreude across repeated misfortunes.

Chapter 5: Study 3

5.1 Overview

The goal of Study 3 was to determine the behavioural consequences of the emotion of schadenfreude. In particular, the aim of the third study was to test, for the first time, the relationship between schadenfreude and subsequent helping behaviour to address outstanding questions about a critical facet of this emotion. In this third study, student participants were informed about the details of a fictional fellow student who experienced a misfortune while skiing and were asked to not only report their emotional experience but to indicate how much help they believed the target deserved and how willing they would be to personally help the student. In line with Studies 1 and 2, social comparison, misfortune type, and target gender were manipulated to evaluate whether these variables influence the schadenfreude response, and now, willingness to help.

Some have postulated that the dearth of empathy that encompasses the schadenfreude response may encourage antisocial actions (e.g., Cikara, 2015; Cikara & Fiske, 2012) whereas others have suggested that experiencing schadenfreude improves self-esteem and simultaneously reduces the urge to aggress (e.g., Leach & Spears, 2009; van Dijk et al., 2011). Given the growing evidence that schadenfreude is a deficit in affective empathy, and preliminary evidence for schadenfreude serving the adaptive purpose to maintain the lessened status of competitors

(e.g., Lange & Boecker, 2018), it was predicted that willingness to help would decline as the subjective experience of schadenfreude increases. Further, it was hypothesized that this increased schadenfreude and decreased willingness to help effect would be most prominent in the upward social comparison condition and would be reversed in the downward social comparison condition; that is, participants would feel less schadenfreude and demonstrate more willingness to help in the downward social comparison condition. Additionally, it was predicted that female

participants would experience increased schadenfreude and a decreased willingness to help a female target who experienced a misfortune that diminished physical appearance compared to a misfortune that depicted a loss of resources, and that this effect would be influenced by social comparison.

5.2 Participants

The participants were 345 undergraduate students who identified as female (M = 19.93 years, SD = 2.89) from the University of British Columbia Okanagan campus (UBCO).

Caucasian students made up 71.3% of the sample, 15.9% of the sample was Asian, 2.6% identified as Aboriginal, and 10.2% of the sample identified as other. In relation to sexual orientation, 91% of the sample identified as heterosexual, 1.2% as homosexual, 7% as bisexual, and 0.9% identified as other. Students participated in the study in return for 1 course credit.

5.3 Materials and Procedure

Participants were recruited from the Department of Psychology’s SONA Research subject pool and data were collected via an online survey platform. They were informed that they would be completing a questionnaire to provide opinions about peer-support to the University

Access Program, a fictional campus resource created for use in this study. After consenting to participate in the study, participants were randomly assigned on a between-subjects basis to one of three social prime conditions (a) downward social comparison, (b) lateral social comparison, or (c) upward social comparison and to one of two gender of target conditions, (a) male target or

(b) female target.

5.3.1 Social Comparison Primes. One description of an individual was created for each of downward, lateral, and upward social comparison (see Appendix D). The primes were derived from those used in Studies 1 and 2 but were revised to be more specific to describe a student on the UBCO campus. This was done for two reasons, first, to increase social comparison because

research has demonstrated that this is more influential when comparisons are made to similar peers and second, to increase the validity of the paradigm employed. Each prime described a student attending UBCO who played for the campus volleyball team; the details of their grades, position on the team, effort in school and sports, and demeanor towards teammates was manipulated to allow for the three types of social comparison. Target gender was manipulated by changing the name and pronouns used in the social comparison primes and misfortune vignettes.

Students were presented with the details of a fellow student under the premise that the University

Access Program provides academic supports to students and they were seeking additional information about students’ opinions about the type and degree of support that should be offered to students on campus.

5.3.2 Misfortune Vignettes. Participants were presented with a description of a student under the guise that this was a real-life scenario that presented to the University Access Program in the past year. Participants were then provided with a description of a misfortune that resulted in the student seeking academic support (see Appendix D). In line with Studies 1 and 2, misfortunes that depicted a reduction in physical attractiveness and resources were included as was the inclusion of a misfortune description that served as a control. This is the first study in this series to include a control condition for misfortune type; it was included to further explore the role of the misfortune itself in the experience of schadenfreude. Each misfortune contained details of a student experiencing a skiing accident at a local ski hill that resulted in a broken arm; this is the extent of the description in the control condition. To manipulate a decline in physical attractiveness, participants were informed that the target broke his/her arm and cut his/her face, leaving a large, permanent scar. To manipulate a decrease in resources, participants were presented with a vignette that depicted the target breaking his/her arm to a degree that it caused permanent damage and resulted in the loss of his/her volleyball career and scholarship. Each

participant was presented with one social comparison prime (downward, lateral, or upward social comparison and either a male or a female target) and one of the misfortune vignettes (either control, loss of physical attractiveness, or loss of resources); resulting in a 3 (social comparison, between-subjects) × 2 (target gender, between-subjects) × 3 (misfortune type, between-subjects) design.

5.3.3 Helping Behaviour Questions. Participants were then informed that, due to the injury, the student in the description would require aid (e.g., carrying belongings to/from class, taking notes in class) to successfully complete his/her coursework. They were then asked two questions: (a) How much time do you think the average UBCO student would be willing to dedicate to helping this student with carrying his/her belongings, taking notes in class, opening doors, etc.?, and (b) How much time would you, personally, be willing to dedicate to helping this student with carrying his/her belongings, taking notes in class, opening doors, etc.? Participants indicated their response as the number of minutes per week. They then completed the

Schadenfreude and Empathy Form and a demographics form before being debriefed and thanked for their participation.

5.4 Results

5.4.1 Schadenfreude. A 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2

(target gender: male and female) × 3 (misfortune type: control, diminished physical attractiveness, and diminished financial resources) independent factorial analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was conducted on the mean reported schadenfreude as measured by the

Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form (see Table 9 for means and standard deviations).

The main effect of social comparison was significant, F(2, 327) = 28.00, p < .001, partial h2 =

.15. A Tukey’s post-hoc test revealed that participants in the upward social comparison condition

(M = 1.56, SE = 0.04) experienced more schadenfreude than participants in both the downward

(M = 1.13, SE = 0.05; p < .001, d = 0.89) and lateral (M = 1.22, SE = 0.05; p < .001, d = 0.64) social comparison conditions; the downward and lateral social comparison conditions did not differ (p = .27, d = 0.28). The main effects of misfortune type, F(2, 327) = 1.68, p = .19, partial h2 = .01, and target gender, F(1, 327) = 1.58, p = .21, partial h2 = .005, were not significant. All interactions were not significant (see Table 10 for test statistics).

5.4.2 Others’ Willingness to Help. Restrictions were not placed on responses to the question “How much time (in minutes) do you think the average UBCO student would be willing to dedicate to helping this student [the target] with carrying his/her belongings, taking notes in class, opening doors, etc.?” As such, a wide range of responses was provided (M = 234.49, SD =

533.86; minimum = 0, maximum = 7000) which resulted in skewed data as a result of outliers.

Attempts to transform the data were not successful given the degree to which several responses were influencing the data; as such, outliers that fell two standard deviations above the mean, as determined using z scores, were replaced with a value (1302.11 min) that was equivalent of two standard deviations above the mean (see Field, 2009).

A 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2 (target gender: male and female) × 3 (misfortune type: control, diminished physical attractiveness, and diminished financial resources) independent factorial ANOVA was conducted on the amount of time (in minutes) that participants believed others would be willing to dedicate to helping the student target (see Table 9 for means and standard deviations). The main effects of social comparison,

F(2, 326) = 0.74, p = 0.48, partial h2 = .05, misfortune type, F(2, 326) = 2.41, p = .09, partial h2

= .15, and target gender, F(1, 326) = 0.76, p = .38, partial h2 = .002, were not significant. The hypothesized three-way interaction also was not significant, F(4, 326) = 0.45, p = .77, partial h2

= .006, nor were any of the two-way interactions (see Table 11).

5.4.3 Personal Willingness to Help. Similarly, response restrictions were not placed on the question “How much time would you, personally, be willing to dedicate to helping this student [the target] with carrying his/her belongings, taking notes in class, opening doors, etc.?” and the resulting data ranged from 0 to 1800 minutes (M = 254.24, SD = 580.41). Once again, z scores were used to convert outliers to a value equivalent to two standard deviations above the mean (1415.06 min).

A 3 (social comparison: downward, lateral, and upward) × 2 (target gender: male and female) × 3 (misfortune type: control, diminished physical attractiveness, and diminished financial resources) independent factorial ANOVA was conducted on the amount of time (in minutes) participants would be personally willing to dedicate to helping the student target (see

Table 9 for means and standard deviations). The main effects of social comparison, F(2, 326) =

2.02, p = 0.13, partial h2 = .012, misfortune type, F(2, 326) = 1.09, p = .34, partial h2 = .007, and target gender, F(1, 326) = 1.94, p = .17, partial h2 = .006, were not significant. The three- way interaction also was not significant, F(4, 326) = 0.51, p = .73, partial h2 = .006, nor were any of the two-way interactions (see Table 12).

5.4.4 Relationship Between Schadenfreude and Helping Behaviour. To test the relationship between the experience of schadenfreude and subsequent helping behaviour, the correlations between participants’ mean schadenfreude response (M = 1.32, SD = 0.50) and their two helping behaviour responses were tested. The correlation between reported schadenfreude and the amount of time participants believed others would allot to help the target (M = 205.65,

SD = 253.03) was not significant, r = -.06, p = .26. However, the correlation between schadenfreude and the amount of time participants indicated they would personally be willing to help the target (M = 214.95, SD = 257.37) was significant, r = -.13, p = .02; this significant

negative correlation suggests that as schadenfreude increases, personal willingness to help the target decreases.

5.5 Discussion

To address floor effects observed in Studies 1 and 2, the misfortune type manipulation was revised for Study 3. A number of changes were made to this condition, including reducing the severity of the misfortunes presented, adding a misfortune vignette that served as a control, and presenting the misfortunes in a between-subjects, rather than within-subjects, design. Similar to the first two studies, the main effect of social comparison was significant with participants reporting increased schadenfreude for targets in the upward social comparison condition compared to those in the lateral and downward conditions. This result replicates the pattern observed in Study 1. In this study, the main effect of misfortune type was not significant suggesting no difference in schadenfreude across the control, diminished physical attractiveness, and diminished resources misfortunes. Similar to Studies 1 and 2, the hypothesized target gender by misfortune type interaction was not significant.

To test the effect of the schadenfreude response on subsequent helping behaviour, participants were asked to indicate (a) how much time they believed others would be willing to dedicate to helping the target complete academic tasks, and (b) how much time they would be willing to personally help the target with these tasks. Analyses indicated that the social comparison, target gender, and misfortune type conditions (and the relationships between them) had no bearing on the responses to either of these questions. However, the data revealed that as the degree of schadenfreude experienced for the target increased, the amount of time that participants would be willing to personally help the target decreased, suggesting the presence of some behavioural consequences of schadenfreude.

Chapter 6: General Discussion

Schadenfreude is the feeling of malicious pleasure that occurs following the observation of another individual experiencing a misfortune (Heider, 1958). A growing body of research on this phenomenon has explored the cognitive antecedents, subjective experience, neurophysiological changes, and communication methods that comprise this experience (see

Dasborough & Harvey, 2017; Smith, 2013; Takahashi et al., 2009). Further, researchers have begun to explore the adaptive purpose and the intra- and interpersonal function of this affective state (e.g., Brambilla & Riva, 2017; Lange & Boecker, 2018). However, few have explored the final, critical, component of this emotion, the behavioural ramifications. Additional research in this area is necessary to supplement our understanding of the emotional state of schadenfreude and its future consequences.

The present dissertation adopted an evolutionary framework to test novel hypotheses about the cognitive appraisals, misfortune factors, and ultimately, the behavioural consequences of schadenfreude. Specifically, it sought to replicate previous research on the influence of upward social comparisons while extending earlier studies to explore the role of lateral and downward social comparisons. Further, it explored schadenfreude in the context of more severe misfortunes and after witnessing a target undergo repeated misfortunes. Finally, it examined the effect of schadenfreude on subsequent helping behaviour for the victim of the misfortune. These studies were conducted in an effort to better understand this universal emotion and to provide information relevant to understanding the function of this emotional response. Across the three studies, additional support for the role of upward social comparison and the importance of misfortune severity were found and a negative relationship between schadenfreude and helping behaviour was revealed. The implications and directions for future research are discussed below.

6.1 Cognitions

Much of the research into the construct of schadenfreude has studied the role of cognitive appraisal in the presence and degree of the schadenfreude response. Although several constructs, including envy, resentment, deservingness, have been explored regarding their individual role in instigating malicious pleasure rather than the typical empathy response, each represents a common theme, the evaluation of, and comparison to, another person to determine the status and worth of the self (see Smith, 2013). Numerous studies have found that schadenfreude often occurs following an upward social comparison (e.g., Feather et al., 2013; Gao et al., 2014; Leach

& Spears, 2008; Takahashi et al., 2009). In the present studies, this previous research was replicated and extended to include the commonly evaluated condition of upward social comparison (replication) while also including lateral and downward social comparison conditions (extension). This allowed for an understanding of the individual effects of three levels of social comparison on the subsequent schadenfreude response and also afforded the opportunity for a comparison of the degree of schadenfreude expressed at each level. As per previous research, it was anticipated that participants would report more schadenfreude in the upward social comparison condition and less schadenfreude in the downward social comparison condition.

In line with hypotheses, the influence of social comparison was evident across all three studies. Participants reported significantly more malicious pleasure, regardless of target gender or misfortune type, in the upward social comparison condition compared to the downward social comparison condition across all three studies. The results for targets in the lateral comparison condition varied slightly across studies. In Studies 1 and 3, participants reported more schadenfreude for targets in the upward social comparison condition compared to those in the lateral and downward conditions and they did not differentiate between targets in the downward

and lateral conditions. In Study 2, however, the difference between upward and downward conditions remained the same but participants reported more schadenfreude for targets in the lateral condition than for those in the downward social comparison condition; in this study, they did not differentiate between targets in the upward and lateral conditions. The reason for this difference is not clear as the same social comparison vignettes were used in Studies 1 and 2 and were revised for Study 3. However, a single lateral social comparison prime from Study 1 was randomly selected for use in Study 2. Given that the outcome of social comparison is dependent on the perceived characteristics of the target and the observer, it is possible that the participants in Study 2 perceived the target in this lateral prime to be superior, rather than similar, to themselves, resulting in an upward social comparison, and thus, increased schadenfreude following a misfortune. The current studies provided support for the role of upward versus downward social comparison in the subsequent experience of schadenfreude. Further, the results suggest that participants are sensitive to the information provided in the social comparison primes and that efforts must be made in the future to carefully design these vignettes to accurately approximate the intended comparison.

6.2 Schadenfreude Following Repeated Misfortunes

To better understand the consequences of the schadenfreude response, a novel question about the experience of malicious pleasure following repeated misfortunes was tested. Given that schadenfreude is often felt for known subjects, it is likely that observers will learn of more than one misfortune befalling a single target; however, the response following exposures to repeated misfortunes was unknown. In Study 2, participants were presented with one target who experienced four sequential misfortunes and were asked to indicate their experience of schadenfreude after each misfortune vignette. Interestingly, there was a notable decline in schadenfreude following presentation of the first misfortune in the upward social comparison

condition, and self-reported schadenfreude remained low for all subsequent misfortunes. That is, participants felt an elevated degree of schadenfreude for the first misfortune to befall a target they deemed to be superior to themselves but felt little schadenfreude in response to the remaining misfortunes.

This is in line with the theorized intrapersonal function of schadenfreude (see Brambilla

& Riva, 2017). It has been posited that upward social comparison results in the pain of inferiority and that the subsequent experience of schadenfreude helps to replace feelings of pain with feelings of pleasure (Brambilla & Riva, 2017; van Dijk et al., 2012). This is achieved by a subsequent cognitive appraisal wherein the individual who was once perceived to be dominant is considered to have lost his/her power as a result of the misfortune, which allows the observer’s relative status and self-worth to be bolstered. The results of Study 2 suggest that, if the target in question continues to experience misfortunes that reduce his/her perceived status, the observer may begin to engage in a downward social comparison, in which his/her relative status does not change, and feelings of pleasure do not follow after additional misfortunes. This may also have consequences for the interpersonal function of schadenfreude, including the influence of schadenfreude on subsequent social behaviour.

6.3 Behavioural Consequences

The third study was one of the first to directly test the relationship between the experience of schadenfreude and its behavioural consequences. In particular, the willingness for observers to help a target after experiencing schadenfreude was examined to address an ongoing debate regarding the interplay of schadenfreude and empathy on subsequent willingness to help or harm. Some researchers (see Cikara, 2015; Cikara & Fiske, 2012) have theorized that schadenfreude, and the resulting lack of affective empathy, would spur antisocial behaviour whereas others (see Smith, 2013) have suggested that the experience of schadenfreude would be

sufficient to eliminate the pain of inferiority and would instigate prosocial acts. First, the empathy response following misfortunes, and its relation to schadenfreude, was tested in Study

1. In line with previous research (see van Dijk et al., 2011; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Smith,

2015), a moderate negative relationship (r = -.46) was found between schadenfreude and empathy, suggesting that these two variables do not represent the opposite poles of a single spectrum. Despite a moderate relationship between the two variables, the results of the omnibus analyses were the inverse of one another; the empathy response also was primarily influenced by social comparison and misfortune type.

Subsequently, in Study 3, two forms of helping behaviour were assessed, one in which the participants were not personally involved (others’ willingness to help) and one in which they were (personal willingness to help). There were no relationships found between the independent variables (i.e., social comparison, gender of target, and misfortune type) and either of the two types of helping behaviour. However, there was a relationship between the degree of schadenfreude experienced and subsequent willingness to personally help the target such that the more schadenfreude that a person felt, the less amount of time they would be willing to dedicate to personally helping the target. Together, this suggests the presence of downstream consequences and that, following the experience of schadenfreude, empathy is reduced, and observers are less willing to help (and potentially more willing to harm; see Cikara, 2015; Cikara

& Fiske, 2012; Cikara et al., 2011) the suffering target.

This finding also provides some evidence for the theorized social functional approach of the emotion of schadenfreude as a mechanism to acknowledge and benefit from the loss of dominance or tangible resources of a target who initially was perceived to be superior (e.g.,

Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Lange et al., in press). The results fall in line with the two previous studies that examined the possible behavioural consequences of schadenfreude (e.g., Lange &

Boecker, 2018; Ouwerkerk et al., 2018). In these studies, it was reported that, after an initial appraisal in which the target was deemed to be of a higher status, participants believed that a target (an individual in one study and an outgroup in the other) lost status following the misfortune. In Lange and Boecker (2018), this emboldened participants to openly react to the misfortune to communicate that the target had lost dominance and then to cheat in an effort to continue to decrease the resources of the target in question. In Ouwerkerk et al. (2018), participants indicated an intention to share the news that the outgroup had suffered a misfortune and lost status in an effort to maintain their lowered social standing and reputation. The results of

Study 3 are in line with this previous research as the targets in question lost status and the ability to complete academic requirements as a result of the misfortune and, following the emotional experience of schadenfreude, participants reported less of a willingness to help those targets. It is possible that participants were not willing to help fellow students with their schoolwork in an effort to maintain the targets’ inability to complete their assignments, eliminating them as an academic competitor and maintaining their lowered status as a student and athlete.

6.4 Evolutionary Theory: Schadenfreude, Gender, and Misfortune Type

The current study employed evolutionary theories as an organizing framework to test various elements of the emotion of schadenfreude. In particular, as per previous studies conducted by Colyn and Gordon (2013) and van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, and Smith (2015), Sexual

Strategies Theory (Buss, 2005) and the role of competition in mate selection guided the selection of misfortune type and the inclusion of target gender as variables in these studies. From this, it was hypothesized that there would be a significant effect of participant gender, target gender, and misfortune type. Specifically, predictions were made that female participants would feel the most schadenfreude for female targets who experienced misfortunes that diminished their physical attractiveness and male participants would report the most schadenfreude for male targets who

experienced misfortunes that diminished their financial status. In line with this, it was hypothesized that female participants would feel less schadenfreude for male targets and for misfortunes related to decreased financial status and that male participants would feel less schadenfreude for female targets and for misfortunes related to decreased physical attractiveness.

Colyn and Gordon (2013) found support for the influence of target gender and misfortune type on the schadenfreude response in female participants but not male participants. In an extension of this study, van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, and Smith (2015) found support for the influence of these variables in both male and female participants. The results of the studies presented here did not find evidence to support these hypotheses; both the predicted interactions and the individual main effect for target gender were not significant. There was a main effect of misfortune type in Studies 1 and 2 in which female participants reported more schadenfreude overall for diminished financial resource rather than diminished physical attractiveness misfortunes, but this same effect did not persist in Study 3 when misfortune type became a between- rather than a within-subjects variable. As such, the results of the current study may call into question the use of schadenfreude as a mate-value tracking mechanism, as was proposed by

Colyn and Gordon (2013), or even the applicability of evolutionary theory as a framework to better understand the schadenfreude response. However, there are a number of factors in the current studies that may help to explain why they differ from previous research in this area.

One such factor is that male participants were not included in the present studies due to insufficient data. Few men completed Studies 1 and 2, and, as a result, they were eliminated from the analyses and data for male participants were not collected for Study 3. As such, only half of the theory-driven predictions related to participant and target gender and misfortune type could be tested. Given that Colyn and Gordon (2013) found support for their predictions in only one gender of participant (women), it is possible that the results for the current study would have

been significant for only one gender, men, but this could not be tested at this time. Future research should include male participants to comprehensively test evolutionarily-driven theories on the schadenfreude response related to mate value. Further, subsequent research should directly test the influence of participants’ sexual orientation on gender-driven social comparisons and misfortunes.

6.5 Limitations and Future Directions

There are a number of other limitations of the current studies that should be highlighted to guide future research on this topic. For example, floor effects were observed across all three studies, likely as a result of the severity of the misfortunes. Earlier studies employed relatively minor misfortunes, such as poor dress, embarrassing jokes, and weight gain, and observed self- reported means that ranged from 1.48 to 3.55 on a Likert scale from 0 to 6 that was similar to the one employed in the present research (i.e., van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Smith, 2015). The current studies described misfortunes with more severe, long-term consequences, such as permanent hair loss and loss of a scholarship, and produced a weaker subjective experience of schadenfreude.

Severe misfortunes were chosen intentionally to explore the effect of misfortune severity on the schadenfreude response. The results suggest that schadenfreude is diminished for misfortunes with severe consequences, and that the severity of the outcome may be more relevant than the specific type of misfortune.

This is highlighted in the results of Studies 1 and 2 in which, contrary to hypotheses, female participants reported more schadenfreude for diminished financial resource misfortunes compared to decreased physical appearance misfortunes. In light of this finding, the misfortunes themselves were re-evaluated and it was evident that the diminished physical attractiveness misfortunes had more detrimental, long-term consequences (i.e., permanent hair loss and permanent scarring across much of the body) compared to the diminished financial resource

misfortunes which had more benign, shorter-term consequences (e.g., loss of a job and loss of scholarship). Given the effect of the severity of the misfortunes in the first two studies, the misfortunes included in Study 3 represented the same types of misfortunes but with less severe long-term consequences; specifically, a broken arm with a single scar on the face or the loss of a scholarship. Once the severity of the misfortunes was decreased, and better matched, the differences in misfortune type were eliminated. However, floor effects in the schadenfreude response continued to be observed in Study 3, suggesting that the content of the misfortune vignettes is relevant to the cognitive appraisal that precedes the schadenfreude response. As such, it is critical that the misfortune vignettes be constructed carefully and with consideration for not only the content, but the severity of the consequences, of the misfortune in the short- and long-term future. Further, the nature of the competitive relationship between the observer and the target should be explored in relation to the subsequent schadenfreude response; the content of the social comparison primes may influence the degree of malicious pleasure experienced. Indeed, future research should refine our understanding of the parameters that guide for whom and for what observers will experience schadenfreude.

Floor effects may also have affected the schadenfreude response following the presentation of a single target experiencing repeated misfortunes in Study 2. As the mean reported schadenfreude was low following even the first misfortune, there was little opportunity to see the extent to which schadenfreude might decline following an initial misfortune and whether there might be differences following subsequent misfortunes (e.g., does schadenfreude decrease completely after the first misfortune or does it decrease incrementally following each subsequent misfortune?). It is possible that results were found only in the upward social comparison condition in the current study because the greatest amount of schadenfreude was reported in this condition. Future research should explore the role of changes in the

schadenfreude response following repeated misfortunes and also examine the experience of schadenfreude for one misfortune across time to better understand this affective experience and the effect it may have on subsequent behaviour.

Similarly, future research should continue to explore the relationship between schadenfreude, empathy, and behaviour. As hypothesized, schadenfreude involves the presence of cognitive empathy with a concurrent lack of affective empathy. This discordant relationship may help to explain the discrepancy between the moderate relationship between schadenfreude and empathy, but the close inverse relationship between these states in relation to the other variables manipulated. The measure of empathy employed in the current study assessed only the affective state of empathy (e.g., “I feel bad for the target in the scenario”) and not the cognitive component (e.g., “I understand that the target in the scenario has suffered a misfortune”). As such, this specific hypothesis could not be tested to further evaluate the relationship between these two states. Other studies that have examined the relationship between schadenfreude and empathy (see van Dijk et al., 2011; van Dijk, Ouwerkerk, & Smith, 2015) also have solely queried the affective empathy experience rather than assessing for cognitive empathy as well.

Future research should carefully measure both the cognitive and affective components of empathy to compare each to the schadenfreude response to better understand the relation between these important factors.

A final limitation was the use of an open-ended questioning method (i.e., time in minutes) employed in Study 3 that resulted in wide range of responses provided by participants.

Transformations were not sufficient to address the skewness of the data and, as a result, outliers were addressed by being replaced by a value two standard deviations above the mean. Despite these corrections, the range of data was still vast and likely affected the results found for both of the outcome measures related to helping the target in question. Future research should continue

to explore the influence of schadenfreude on subsequent behaviour, evaluating new forms of helping behaviour and querying the possibility of harming behaviour. If a similar outcome variable were to be used, it is recommended that parameters be placed on the number of minutes that could be suggested.

6.6 Conclusion

The malicious pleasure that comprises the schadenfreude response is a universal emotional experience that requires further examination. To date, significant research has been conducted to explore the role of antecedent cognitive appraisals, the subsequent neurophysiological reaction, and communication of this emotion, but little attention has been given to the resulting behavioural consequences. The current dissertation expanded our understanding of cognitive appraisals that precede the experience of schadenfreude in an evolutionary framework, while extending our understanding of this emotional experience over time. Further, helping behaviour (or lack thereof) was examined as a potential consequence of schadenfreude. The results of the current studies suggest that, in addition to social comparison, features related to the misfortune, including severity and frequency, affect the schadenfreude response. Further, there is preliminary evidence for the existence of downstream consequences that manifest as an unwillingness to help the target, potentially in an effort to maintain the target’s diminished status, following a misfortune. Additional research on each of these factors is necessary to more comprehensively understand the unique emotional experience of schadenfreude and the subsequent ramifications it may have.

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Pilot Study Misfortune Vignettes

Physical Vignette Attractiveness Social Status Severity Intensity M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

One 4.63(1.35) 3.94(1.51) 4.06(1.52) 3.45(1.53)

Two 3.70(1.69) 2.80(1.51) 2.36(1.54) 2.26(1.61)

Three 3.35(1.49) 3.06(1.48) 3.08(1.53) 2.90(1.57)

Four 4.98(1.57) 3.39(1.75) 3.65(1.91) 3.61(1.95)

Five 4.98(1.32) 3.84(1.65) 3.08(1.64) 2.80(1.63)

Six 5.53(1.21) 4.39(1.78) 6.65(0.66) 6.53(0.82)

Seven 5.56(1.03) 4.58(1.30) 5.52(1.11) 5.22(1.62)

Eight 6.24(0.90) 4.98(1.74) 6.80(0.71) 6.65(0.81)

Nine 3.02(1.67) 5.04(1.41) 3.58(1.73) 3.56(1.89)

Ten 2.84(1.66) 4.56(1.53) 3.86(1.75) 4.02(1.80)

Eleven 3.08(1.71) 3.94(1.61) 3.42(1.75) 3.48(1.78)

Twelve 2.64(1.45) 2.70(1.46) 2.48(1.56) 2.44(1.50)

Thirteen 2.30(1.42) 3.34(1.56) 5.50(1.37) 4.60(1.55)

Fourteen 2.92(1.96) 5.72(1.13) 6.32(0.74) 5.84(1.27)

Fifteen 2.60(1.53) 4.36(1.35) 5.32(1.35) 4.70(1.63)

Sixteen 2.30(1.46) 3.42(1.62) 3.98(1.65) 3.66(1.59)

Table 2

Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude and Empathy (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) by Social Comparison, Target Gender, and Misfortune Type Conditions

Dependent Variable

Social Target Misfortune Schadenfreude Empathy Comparison Gender Type M(SD) M(SD) Downward Male Physical 1.15(0.43) 4.06(0.80) Attractiveness

Financial 1.46(0.64) 3.35(0.79) Resources

Female Physical 1.02(0.07) 4.32(0.54) Attractiveness

Financial 1.65(0.69) 3.36(0.76) Resources

Lateral Male Physical 1.06(0.14) 4.02(0.59) Attractiveness

Financial 1.56(0.59) 3.13(0.68) Resources

Female Physical 1.04(0.11) 4.30(0.43) Attractiveness

Financial 1.53(0.59) 3.07(0.81) Resources

Upward Male Physical 1.63(0.68) 3.54(0.74) Attractiveness

Financial 2.10(0.79) 2.36(0.84) Resources

Female Physical 1.27(0.53) 3.64(0.75) Attractiveness

Financial 1.89(0.69) 2.46(0.88) Resources

Table 3

Study 1: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed

Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 13.50 2 .00*** .15

target gender 1.39 1 .24 .01

misfortune type 108.04 1 .00*** .41

social comparison × target gender 1.75 2 .18 .02

social comparison × misfortune type 0.24 2 .79 .00

target gender × misfortune type 2.68 1 .10 .02

social comparison × target gender × 0.92 2 .40 .01 misfortune type

*** p < .001

Table 4

Study 1: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed

Design ANOVA for Empathy

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 23.38 2 .00*** .23

target gender 1.22 1 .27 .01

misfortune type 299.56 1 .00*** .66

social comparison × target gender 0.01 2 .99 .00

social comparison × misfortune type 3.23 2 .04* .04

target gender × misfortune type 2.83 1 .09 .02

social comparison × target gender × 0.73 2 .48 .01 misfortune type

* p < .05, *** p < .001

Table 5

Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5)

Across Social Comparison, Target Gender, and Misfortune Type Conditions

Dependent Variable

Social Target Misfortune Schadenfreude Comparison Gender Type M(SD) Downward Male Physical 1.00(0.00) Attractiveness

Financial 1.35(0.35) Resources

Female Physical 1.09(0.17) Attractiveness

Financial 1.53(0.60) Resources

Lateral Male Physical 1.06(0.11) Attractiveness

Financial 1.77(0.69) Resources

Female Physical 1.37(0.67) Attractiveness

Financial 2.02(0.61) Resources

Upward Male Physical 1.36(0.52) Attractiveness

Financial 1.98(0.82) Resources

Female Physical 1.09(0.27) Attractiveness

Financial 1.85(0.68) Resources

Table 6

Study 2: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed

Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 5.88 2 .00*** .12

target gender 0.71 1 .40 .01

misfortune type 79.83 1 .00*** .47

social comparison × target gender 2.83 2 .06 .06

social comparison × misfortune type 2.02 2 .14 .04

target gender × misfortune type 0.19 1 .67 .00

social comparison × target gender × 0.22 2 .80 .01 misfortune type

*** p < .001

Table 7

Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5)

Across Social Comparison, Target Gender, and Presentation Order

Dependent Variable

Social Target Presentation Schadenfreude Comparison Gender Order M(SD)

Downward Male First 1.26(0.39) Second 1.12(0.44) Third 1.22(0.47) Fourth 1.11(0.29)

Female First 1.25(0.50) Second 1.24(0.47) Third 1.43(0.73) Fourth 1.33(0.43)

Lateral Male First 1.29(0.58) Second 1.36(0.75) Third 1.44(0.81) Fourth 1.56(0.80)

Female First 1.90(0.84) Second 1.87(0.94) Third 1.36(0.72) Fourth 1.66(0.69)

Upward Male First 2.11(1.13) Second 1.31(0.47) Third 1.49(0.66) Fourth 1.77(0.94)

Female First 1.77(0.93) Second 1.43(0.82) Third 1.35(0.64) Fourth 1.33(0.49)

Table 8

Study 2: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 4 (presentation order)

Mixed Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 5.88 2 .00*** .12

target gender 0.71 1 .40 .01

presentation order 2.16 2.76 .10 .02

social comparison × target gender 2.83 2 .06 .06

social comparison × presentation order 1.88 5.52 .09 .04

target gender × presentation order 0.91 2.76 .43 .01

social comparison × target gender × 1.18 5.52 .32 .03 presentation order

*** p < .001

Table 9

Study 3: Means and Standard Deviations for Schadenfreude (on a Likert scale from 1 to 5) and

Others’ and Personal Willingness to Help (in min) Across Social Comparison, Target Gender, and Misfortune Type Conditions

Dependent Variable

Others’ Personal Social Target Misfortune Schadenfreude Willingness to Willingness to Comparison Gender Type M(SD) Help Help M(SD) M(SD)

Downward Male Control 1.10(0.22) 290.44(338.99) 329.06(344.29)

Physical 1.19(0.34) 202.71(276.71) 235.00(275.32) Attractiveness

Financial 1.10(0.23) 162.05(141.79) 180.35(140.24) Resources

Female Control 1.11(0.24) 229.73(372.63) 265.45(398.09)

Physical 1.17(0.18) 219.29(188.54) 226.43(182.32) Attractiveness

Financial 1.08(0.18) 210.21(188.07) 188.75(168.87) Resources

Lateral Male Control 1.29(0.47) 220.00(202.66) 279.33(218.91)

Physical 1.25(0.36) 190.68(159.19) 190.26(159.99) Attractiveness

Financial 1.26(0.45) 302.95(368.75) 333.41(379.02) Resources

Female Control 1.20(0.23) 188.94(200.01) 241.25(204.39)

Physical 1.16(0.51) 97.74(96.93) 139.74(133.73) Attractiveness

Financial 1.17(0.20) 307.61(359.93) 253.89(338.79) Resources

Upward Male Control 1.77(0.72) 311.67(366.60) 240.24(273.56)

Physical 1.51(0.69) 130.26(137.38) 234.21(404.96) Attractiveness

Financial 1.53(0.73) 161.00(221.70) 127.22(102.32) Resources

Female Control 1.68(0.60) 170.27(272.89) 133.08(211.65)

Physical 1.54(0.71) 145.26(110.33) 153.16(161.69) Attractiveness

Financial 1.33(0.31) 184.35(247.16) 192.61(274.05) Resources

Table 10

Study 3: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed

Design ANOVA for Schadenfreude

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 28.00 2 .00*** .15

target gender 1.58 1 .21 .01

misfortune type 1.68 2 .19 .01

social comparison × target gender 0.26 2 .77 .00

social comparison × misfortune type 1.42 4 .23 .02

target gender × misfortune type 0.23 2 .79 .00

social comparison × target gender × 0.20 4 .94 .00 misfortune type

*** p < .001

Table 11

Study 3: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed

Design ANOVA for Others’ Willingness to Help

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 0.74 2 .48 .01

target gender 0.76 1 .38 .00

misfortune type 2.41 2 .09 .02

social comparison × target gender 0.21 2 .82 .00

social comparison × misfortune type 1.99 4 .10 .02

target gender × misfortune type 1.14 2 .32 .01

social comparison × target gender × 0.45 4 .77 .01 misfortune type

Table 12

Study 3: Test Statistics for 3 (social comparison) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (misfortune type) Mixed

Design ANOVA for Personal Willingness to Help

Variable F dfs p value partial h2

social comparison 2.02 2 .13 .01

target gender 1.94 1 .17 .01

misfortune type 1.09 2 .34 .01

social comparison × target gender 0.12 2 .89 .00

social comparison × misfortune type 1.72 4 .15 .02

target gender × misfortune type 0.51 2 .60 .00

social comparison × target gender × 0.51 4 .73 .01 misfortune type

References

Beeney, J. E., Franklin, R. G., Levy, K. N., & Adams, R. B. (2011). I feel your pain: Emotional

closeness modulates neural responses to empathetically experienced rejection. Social

Neuroscience, 6, 369-376. doi:10.1080/17470919.2011.557245

Berndsen, M., Tiggemann, M., & Chapman, S. (2017). 'it wasn’t your fault, but …...':

Schadenfreude about an undeserved misfortune. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 741-748.

doi:10.1007/s11031-017-9639-1

Boecker, L., Likowski, K. U., Pauli, P., & Weyers, P. (2015). The face of schadenfreude:

Differentiation of joy and schadenfreude by electromyography. Cognition and

Emotion, 29, 1117-1125. doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.966063

Brambilla, M., & Riva, P. (2017). Self-image and schadenfreude: Pleasure at others' misfortune

enhances satisfaction of basic human needs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47,

399-411. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2229

Brigham, N. L., Kelso, K. A., Jackson, M. A., & Smith, R. H. (1997). The roles of inviduous

comparisons and deservingness in sympathy and schadenfreude. Basic and Applied

Social Psychology, 79, 363-380. doi:10.1207/15324839751037011

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and

direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their

mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17-32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.17

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., Thomaes, S., Ryu, E., Begeer, S., & West, S. G. (2009).

Looking again, and harder, for a link between low self-esteem and aggression. Journal of

Personality, 77, 427-446. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00553.x

Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation

of anger and upset. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 56, 735-747.

Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology.

42, 459-491. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Buss, D. M. (Ed.). (2005). The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 7, 395-422. doi:10.1177/0265407590073006

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on

human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

Campbell, A. (1993). Men, women, and aggression. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Chester, D. S., Powell, C. J., Smith, R. H., Joseph, J. E., Kedia, G., Combs, D. Y., & DeWall, C.

N. (2013). Justice for the average Joe: The role of envy and the mentalizing network in

the deservingness of others’ misfortunes. Social Neuroscience, 8, 640-649.

doi:10.1080/17470919.2013.846278

Choi, J., & Bowles, S. (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science, 318, 636-

640. doi:10.1126/science.1144237

Cikara, M. (2015). Intergroup schadenfreude: Motivating participation in collective violence.

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 12-17. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.12.007

Cikara, M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Us versus them: Social identity shapes

neural responses to intergroup competition and harm. Psychological Science, 22, 306-

313. doi:10.1177/0956797610397667

Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. R. (2011). Us and them: Intergroup failures of empathy.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 149-153.

doi:10.1177/0963721411408713

Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G., Van Bavel, J. J., & Saxe, R. (2014). Their pain gives us pleasure:

How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110-125. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.06.007

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targetsʼ

(mis)fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 3791-3803.

doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00069

Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotypes and schadenfreude: Affective and physiological

markers of pleasure at out-group misfortunes. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 3, 63-71. doi:10.1177/1948550611409245

Cikara, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2014). The neuroscience of intergroup relations: An integrative

review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 245-274.

doi:10.1177/1745691614527464

Coats, S., Harrington, J. T., Beaubouef, M., & Locke, H. (2012). Sex differences in

relationship regret: The role of perceived mate characteristics. Evolutionary Psychology,

10, 422-442. doi:10.1177/147470491201000304

Cohen-Charash, Y. (2009). Episodic envy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2128-2173.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00519.x

Colyn, L. A., & Gordon, A. K. (2013). Schadenfreude as mate-value-tracking mechanism.

Personal Relationships, 20, 524-545. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01422.x

Combs, D. J. Y., Powell, C. A. J., Schurtz, D. R., & Smith, R. H. (2009). Politics, schadenfreude,

and in-group identification: The sometimes happy thing about a poor economy and death.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 635-646. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.009

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). Evolutionary psychology: New perspectives on cognition and

motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 201-229.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131628

Cox, C. L., Uddin, L. Q., Di Martino, A., Castellanos, F. X., Milham, M. P., & Kelly, C. (2012).

The balance between feeling and knowing: Affective and cognitive empathy are reflected

in the brain’s intrinsic functional dynamics. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,

7, 727-737. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr051

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130,

392-414. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392

Crockett, M. J., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Siegel, J. Z., Dayan, P., & Dolan, R. J. (2014). Harm to others

outweighs harm to self in moral decision-making. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 17320-17325.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1408988111

Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Simulating murder: The aversion

to harmful action. Emotion, 12, 2-7. doi:10.1037/a0025071

Dasborough, M., & Harvey, P. (2017). Schadenfreude: The (not so) secret joy of another’s

misfortune. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 693-707. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3060-7

Decety, J. (2015). The neural pathways, development and functions of empathy. Current

Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 1-6. doi:10.1016/j.coheba.2014.12.001

Dvash, J., Gilam, G., Ben-Ze’ev, A., Hendler, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2010). The envious

brain: The neural basis of social comparison. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1741-1750.

doi:10.1002/hbm.20972

Dvash, J., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. C. (2011). Envy and schadenfreude: The neural correlates of

competitive emotions. In R. Ebstein, S. G. Shamay-Tsoory, & S. H. Chew (Eds.), From

DNA to social cognition (pp. 139-155). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Feather, N. T. (2008). Effects of observer’s own status on reactions to a high achiever’s failure:

Deservingness, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 60, 31-43. doi:10.1080/00049530701458068

Feather, N. T., & Nairn, K. (2005). Resentment, envy, schadenfreude, and sympathy: Effects of

own and other’s deserved or undeserved status. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 87-

102. doi:10.1080/00049530500048672

Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy:

Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 953-961. doi:10.1177/014616720202800708

Feather, N. T., Wenzel, M., & McKee, I. R. (2013). Integrating multiple perspectives on

schadenfreude: The role of deservingness and emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 37,

574-585. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9331-4

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self

through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31-44.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.31

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

doi:10.1177/001872675400700202

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison divides us. The American

Psychologist, 65, 698-706. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.65.8.698

Fuchsman, K. (2015). Empathy and humanity. The Journal of Psychohistory, 42, 176-187.

Retrieved from http://psychohistory.com/winter-2015-vol-42-issue-3/

Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Adaptations to ovulation. In D.

Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 344-371). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley and Sons.

Gao, H., Cao, H., Zhou, Y., Xu, Y., Feng, Y., Wang, F., & Chen, Y. (2014). Taking pleasure at

another's misfortune: The implicit schadenfreude of disaster spectators. Psychological

Reports, 114, 439-460. doi:10.2466/17.21.PR0.114k19w4

Gonzalez-Liencres, C., Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., & Brüne, M. (2013). Towards a neuroscience of

empathy: Ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and psychopathology.

Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1537-1548.

doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.05.001

Greenier, K. D. (2018). The relationship between personality and schadenfreude in hypothetical

versus live situations. Psychological Reports, 121, 445-458.

doi:10.1177/0033294117745562

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F., Shapiro, J. R., & Kenrick, D. T.

(2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 980-994. doi:10.1037/a0013907

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.),

Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852-870). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hareli, S., & Parkinson, B. (2008). What’s social about social emotions? Journal for the Theory

of Social Behaviour, 38(2), 131-156. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00363.x

Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of

Psychology, 65, 399-423. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The evolutionary psychology of envy. In R. H. Smith (Ed.),

Envy: Theory and research (pp. 60-70). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hoogland, C. E., Schurtz, D., Cooper, C. M., Combs, D. Y., Brown, E. G., & Smith, R. H.

(2015). The joy of pain and the pain of joy: In-group identification predicts

schadenfreude and gluckschmerz following rival groups’ fortunes. Motivation and

Emotion, 39, 260-281. doi:10.1007/s11031-014-9447-9

James, S., Kavanagh, P. S., Jonason, P. K., Chonody, J. M., & Scrutton, H. E. (2014). The Dark

Triad, schadenfreude, and sensational interests: Dark personalities, dark emotions, and

dark behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 211-216.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.020

Jankowski, K. F., & Takahashi, H. (2014). Cognitive neuroscience of social emotions and

implications for psychopathology: Examining embarrassment, guilt, envy, and

schadenfreude. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 68, 319-336.

doi:10.1111/pcn.12182

Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Oatley, K. (1992). Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory.

Cognition and Emotion, 6, 201-223. doi:10.1080/02699939208411069

Jung, K. (2017). Happiness as an additional antecedent of schadenfreude. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 12, 186-196. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1173224

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition

and Emotion, 13, 505-521. doi:10.1080/026999399379168

Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages

of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality,

58, 97-116. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x

Kristjánsson, K. (2006). Justice and desert-based emotions. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lange, J., Blatz, L., & Crusius, J. (in press). Dispositional envy: A conceptual review. In V.

Ziegler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), SAGE handbook of personality and individual

differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lange, J., & Boecker, L. (2018). Schadenfreude as social-functional dominance

regulator. Emotion. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/emo0000454

Lange, J., Weidman, A. C., & Crusius, J. (2018). The painful duality of envy: Evidence for an

integrative theory and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and schadenfreude. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 114, 572-598. doi:10.1037/pspi0000118

Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2008). “A vengefulness of the impotent”: The pain of in-group

inferiority and schadenfreude toward successful out-groups. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 95, 1383-1396. doi:10.1037/a0012629

Leach, C. W., & Spears, R. (2009). Dejection at in-group defeat and schadenfreude toward

second- and third-party out-groups. Emotion, 9, 659-665. doi:10.1037/a0016815

Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure:

Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 932-943. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.932

Leach, C. W., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. R. (2015). Parsing (malicious) pleasures:

Schadenfreude and gloating at others’ adversity. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-13.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00201

Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Lisenmeier, J. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries

of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

82, 947-955. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947

McNamee, M. (2003). Schadenfreude in sport: Envy, justice, and self-esteem. Journal of

Philosophy of Sport, 30, 1-16. doi:10.1080/00948705.2003.9714556

Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review

of Psychology, 63, 259-285. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131605

Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1996). The communicative theory of emotions: Empirical

tests, mental models, and implications for social interaction. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser

(Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp.

363-393). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Oatley, K., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2014). Cognitive approaches to emotions. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 18(3), 134-140. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.004

Ouwerkerk, J. W., van Dijk, W. W., Vonkeman, C. C., & Spears, R. (2018). When we enjoy bad

news about other groups: A social identity approach to out-group schadenfreude. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 214-232. doi:10.1177/1368430216663018

Parkinson, B., & Manstead, A. R. (2015). Current emotion research in social psychology:

Thinking about emotions and other people. Emotion Review, 7, 371-380.

doi:10.1177/1754073915590624

Paulus, F. M., Müller-Pinzler, L., Stolz, D. S., Mayer, A. V., Rademacher, L., & Krach, S.

(2018). Laugh or cringe? Common and distinct processes of reward-based schadenfreude

and empathy-based fremdscham. Neuropsychologia, 116(Part A), 52-60.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.05.030

Pietraszkiewicz, A., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Joy, schadenfreude, sorrow, and resentment as

responses restoring balance in cognitive units. Social Psychology, 45, 274-285.

doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000174

Piskorz, J. E., & Piskorz, Z. (2009). Situational determinants of envy and schadenfreude. Polish

Psychological Bulletin, 49, 137-144. doi:10.2478/s10059-009-0030-2

Pleban, R., & Tesser, A. (1981). The effects of relevance and quality of another's performance on

interpersonal closeness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 278-285. doi:10.2307/3033841

Porter, S., Bhanwer, A., Woodworth, M., & Black, P. J. (2014). Soldiers of misfortune: An

examination of the Dark Triad and the experience of schadenfreude. Personality and

Individual Differences, 67, 64-68. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.014

Powell, C. A. J., & Smith, R. H. (2013). Schadenfreude caused by the exposure of hypocrisy in

others. Self and Identity, 12, 413-431. doi:10.1080/15298868.2012.687013

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral

and Brain Sciences, 25, 1-20. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000018

Rudolph, U., & Tscharaktschiew, N. (2014). An attributional analysis of moral emotions: Naïve

scientists and everyday judges. Emotion Review, 6, 344-352.

doi:10.1177/1754073914534507

Sawada, M., & Hayama, D. (2012). Dispositional vengeance and anger on schadenfreude.

Psychological Reports, 111, 322-334. doi:10.2466/16.07.21.PR0.111.4.322-334

Scheff, T. J., & Fearon, D. J. (2004). Cognition and emotion? The dead end in self-esteem

research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34, 73-90. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

5914.2004.00235.x

Scherer, K. (1986). Vocal affect expression: A review and a model for future research.

Psychological Bulletin, 99, 143-165. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.143

Schindler, R., Körner, A., Bauer, S., Hadji, S., & Rudolph, U. (2015). Causes and consequences

of schadenfreude and sympathy: A developmental analysis. PloS ONE, 10(10), 1-28.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137669

Schulz, K., Rudolph, A., Tscharaktschiew, N., & Rudolph, U. (2013). Daniel has fallen into a

muddy puddle - Schadenfreude or sympathy? British Journal of Developmental

Psychology, 31, 363-378. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12013

Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of

human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447-458.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Ahronberg-Kirschenbaum, D., & Bauminger-Zviely, N. (2014). There is

no joy like malicious joy: Schadenfreude in young children. PLoS ONE, 9, 7.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0100233

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Fischer, M., Dvash, J., Harari, H., Perach-Bloom, N., & Levkovitz, Y.

(2009). Intranasal administration of oxytocin increases envy and schadenfreude

(gloating). Biological Psychiatry, 66, 864-870. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.06.009

Singer, T. (2006). The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of

literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,

30, 855-863. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2006.06.011

Smith, R. H. (2013). The joy of pain: Schadenfreude and the dark side of human nature. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority

as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 20, 705-711. doi:10.1177/0146167294206008

Smith, R. H., Powell, C. A. J., Combs, D. J. Y., & Schurtz, D. R. (2009). Exploring the when and

why of schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 530-546.

doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00181.x

Smith, R. H., Turner, T. J., Garonzik, R., Leach, C. W., Urch-Druskat, V., & Weston, C. M.

(1996). Envy and schadenfreude. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 158-

168. doi:10.1177/0146167296222005

Steinbeis, N., & Singer, T. (2013). The effect of social comparison on social emotions and

behaviour during childhood: The ontogeny of envy and schadenfreude predicts

developmental changes in equity-related decisions. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 115,198-209. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.009

Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of

human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual

nature, sexual culture (pp. 80-119). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When your

gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude.

Science Magazine, 323, 937-939. doi:10.1126/science.1165604

Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward

evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96, 569-575. doi:10.1037/0033-

295X.96.4.569

Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. L. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and the perception of friends

and strangers. Journal of Personality, 50, 261-279. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1982.tb00750.x

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),

Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

van de Ven, N., Hoogland, C. E., Smith, R. H., van Dijk, W. W., Breugelmans, S. M., &

Zeelenberg, M. (2014). When envy leads to schadenfreude. Cognition and Emotion, 28,

1-19. doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.961903 van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009) Levelling up and down: The experiences of

benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9, 419-429. doi:10.1037/a0015669 van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Goslinga, S. (2009). The impact of deservingness on

schadenfreude and sympathy: Further evidence. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149,

290-292. doi:10.3200/SOCP.149.3.390-392 van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., & Nieweg, M. (2005). Deservingness and

schadenfreude. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 933-939. doi:10.1080/02699930541000066 van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Smith, R. H. (2015). Schadenfreude as a mate-value-

tracking mechanism: Replication and extension of Colyn and Gordon (2013). Personal

Relationships, 22, 299-307. doi:10.1111/pere.12081 van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Smith, R. H., & Cikara, M. (2015). The role of self-

evaluation and envy in schadenfreude. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 247-

282. doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1111600 van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Wesseling, Y. M. (2012).

“So you want to be a popstar?”: Schadenfreude following another’s misfortune on TV.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 168-174. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.656006 van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Wesseling, Y. M., & van Koningsbruggen, G. M. (2011).

Towards understanding pleasure at the misfortunes of others: The impact of self-

evaluation threat on schadenfreude. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 360-368.

doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.487365

van Dijk, W. W., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Wesseling, Y. M. (2011).

Self-esteem, self-affirmation, and schadenfreude. Emotion, 11, 1445-1449.

doi:10.1037/a0026331

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information

(EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 184-188.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x

Van Kleef, G. A., Van Doorn, E. A., Heerdink, M. W., & Koning, L. (2011). Emotion is for

influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 114-163.

doi:10.1080/10463283.2011.627192

Wai, M., & Tiliopoulos, N. (2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the Dark

Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794-799.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008

Watanabe, H. (2016). Effects of self-evaluation threat on schadenfreude toward strangers in a

reality TV show. Psychological Reports, 118, 778-792. doi:10.1177/0033294116648767

Watt, D. F. (2007). Towards a neuroscience of empathy: Integrating cognitive and affective

perspectives. Neuropsychoanalysis, 9, 161-172. doi:10.1080/15294145.2007.10773550

Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes.

Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.23

Appendices

Appendix A: Misfortune Vignettes (Pilot Study)

Physical Attractiveness Diminishing

1. It is the day before ______has to give an important class presentation on the topic of the importance of first impressions. Seeing as he/she wants to look as professional as possible, he/she decides to get his/her haircut. Because he/she was trying to save money, he/she decided to go the local hair college. This was the college hairdresser’s first time cutting a client’s hair and she left ______with a horribly uneven and choppy haircut.

2. ______had just finished a week-long teeth whitening treatment and was talking to a young woman/man that he/she found really attractive. He/she noticed that the young woman/man was staring at his/her teeth and was pleased that his/her efforts at whitening them had been noticed and appreciated. However, when he/she returned home and looked in the mirror, and was upset when he/she realized that he/she had a large piece of spinach stuck between his/her two front teeth.

3. ______was looking forward to spending a night out with friends, and meeting new people, at the biggest party on campus. He/she spent a long time picking out an outfit and doing his/her hair and had just arrived to the party when someone spilled a bright red drink all over his/her hair and shirt, ruining ______’s hair and clothes.

4. ______was looking forward to going on a date with a cute guy/girl from his/her psychology class that he/she had been flirting with all semester. The morning of the date, he/she broke out and had a number of large, pus-filled pimples across his/her forehead.

5. ______had just finished his/her first year of university. Seeing as his/her group of friends had all gone to different schools, he/she was looking forward to seeing his/her high school friends again on the beach trip they had planned. However, because of the stress caused by university and the lack of healthy food options on campus, ______had gained a considerable amount of weight. Unfortunately, none of the bathing suits he/she owned still fit, and he/she was going to have to go buy some new ones.

6. ______was driving home from the movies one Friday night, when he/she was hit head- on by a drunk driver. ______was thrown through the windshield of his/her car and ended up having numerous lacerations on his/her face that resulted in a lot of scarring.

7. ______noticed that his/her hair had begun to fall out in the shower and on the pillow when he/she was sleeping. He/she also noticed that the hair on his/her head was thinning drastically, and went to the doctor to figure out what was going on. The doctor told ______that he/she had a disease called alopecia and would eventually lose all the hair on his/her body.

8. One night, ______fell asleep on the couch with a candle burning on his/her mantle. The flame caught on a plant and started a fire in the living room that eventually caught onto

______’s blanket and clothing. ______wound up with third degree burns across 80% of his/her body.

Status/Resource Diminishing

9. ______had been to a concert over the weekend and had been one of the people that the cameraman had chosen to focus in on to show on the jumbotron. However, he/she thought it would be more exciting if he/she told his/her friends that he/she had actually been pulled up on stage to sing a song with the band. When telling the story, he/she was not aware that his/her friend, Sarah, had won tickets last-minute to see the concert. Sarah promptly informed the group in front of ______that he/she had never been pulled on stage and was making the whole thing up.

10. ______was a star player on his/her university basketball team. During the final seconds of a close home game, his/her teammate passed him/her the ball and he/she had a fast break to the hoop. Rather than taking a lay-up he/she pulled up for a short jump shot, which turned out to be a complete air-ball, and lost them the game.

11. After spending a week studying for exams, ______was excited to go out to the local club with his/her friends to blow off some steam. While dancing with his/her friends, he/she noticed an attractive girl/guy across the room. He/she decided to approach her/him, and asked her/him to dance. When she/he accepted and things appeared to be escalating quickly, he/she asked her/him if he would like to go back to his/her place and spend the night. She/he responded with “are you kidding? My friends dared me to dance with you!” before running back to her/his group of friends and leaving ______alone on the dance floor.

12. ______is walking down the sidewalk on his/her way to class, when he/she sees a very attractive young woman/man waiting at the bus stop. Because he/she is so focused on adjusting his/her clothing and fixing his/her hair to look as “hot” as possible, he/she fails to see a large crack in the pavement and trips onto the sidewalk, catching him/herself before he/she hits the ground. As ______tripped, his/her books went tumbling towards the feet of the attractive young woman/man.

13. ______went out with friends to a local hockey game one Friday night. They decided to place bets on who would win the game, and because ______was feeling lucky he/she decided to bet $1000 dollars on the home team. Unfortunately, their star player was injured and unable to play in the game and the team lost 7-0, causing ______to lose his/her $1000, a big chunk of his/her student loan for the semester.

14. ______had not adequately prepared for a psychology midterm and quickly realized that he/she did not know quite a few of the answers to the questions on the exam. He/she decided to peek at the exam of the person sitting next to him. While he/she thought that he/she was being subtle, the professor quickly caught on to what was happening and confiscated the exam loudly in front of the class, resulting in ______receiving a 0 and losing his/her scholarship.

15. ______had been working a new job at the local grocery store for the last three months and was always arriving late to work. While the manager had been pretty lenient about it up until this point, only giving ______verbal warnings, he had become tired of him/her being late. As always, ______was running late and when he/she arrived at work the manager confronted and fired him/her, cutting off his/her only source of income.

16. ______was just starting university and was excited to attend his/her first university party. Because he/she was still only 18, he/she had to get his/her older roommate to buy his/her alcohol. The police broke up the party and when they realized that ______was underage, gave him/her an expensive ticket for underage alcohol possession and confiscated his/her beer in front of everyone at the party.

Combination of Vignettes Nine and Fifteen

17. ______attended a concert over the weekend and had been one of the people that the cameraman had chosen to focus in on to show on the jumbotron. However, he/she thought it would be more exciting if he/she told his/her colleagues that he/she had actually been pulled up on stage to sing a song with the band. When telling the story, he/she was not aware that his/her colleague, had won tickets last-minute to see the concert. The colleague promptly informed the group in front of ______that he/she had never been pulled on stage and was making the whole thing up. ______’s boss overheard this and fired ______for lying to his/her colleagues again.

Appendix B: Social Comparison Primes (Studies 1 and 2)

Upward Social Comparison

1. ______is a 20-year-old student and in excellent shape. He/she spends much of his/her time in spas, tanning salons, and the gym. He/she is the president of a couple of clubs on campus and has no problem getting a date. Indeed, ______often dates numerous people at the same time, without them knowing.

2. ______is a 20-year-old student and has had a high-paying job as a restaurant manager. He/she drives an expensive car and is always wearing designer clothing. All of ______employees and staff feel that he/she treats them poorly, often belittling them and under paying them.

3. ______is a 20-year-old student and has been working in an electronics store for six months. His/her commission rate is consistently high, and he/she often uses manipulative tactics, such as deception, with customers to sell products.

4. ______is a 20-year-old student who is the top in his/her class. He/she also is a starting player for his/her university basketball team and is on the sports posters all across campus. ______is arrogant and often makes the younger players on the team do his/her laundry and run his/her errands.

Lateral Social Comparison

5. ______is a 20-year-old student and in average physical shape. He/she spends much of his/her time outdoors, either hiking, biking, or walking. He/she is a member of a couple of clubs on campus and dates occasionally; though recently he/she has been dating one person steadily.

6. ______is a 20-year-old student and works as a server at a local restaurant. He/she drives a mid-range car and doesn’t pay much attention to fashion. ______’s colleagues and bosses find him to be a competent employee.

7. ______is a 20-year-old student and has been working in an electronics store for six months. His/her commission rate is consistently moderate, and he/she feels comfortable dealing with his customers on a one-on-one basis.

8. ______is a 20-year-old student who is gets mostly Bs. He/she also plays for his/her university basketball team. ______always has a smile on his/her face and his/her teammates think that he/she is a team player.

Downward Social Comparison

9. ______is a 20-year-old student and in poor physical shape as he recently was diagnosed with nerve damage. He/she spends much of his/her time inside watching television alone. His/her social life has dwindled because he/she can’t get out much and his/her boyfriend/girlfriend recently broke up with him/her because he/she was tired of having to stay in all of the time.

10. ______is a 20-year-old student and works as a server at two different local restaurants. He/she can’t afford a car and hasn’t been able to buy new clothes in a couple of years because he/she is responsible for all of his/her own bills. ______’s colleagues and bosses are becoming frustrated because the quality of his/her work is suffering because he/she is so tired.

11. ______is a 20-year-old student and has been working in an electronics store for six months. His commission rate has been consistently low because he feels uncomfortable pressuring customers into purchases and doesn’t like to sell people things that they don’t need. He also sometimes gives deals to people who can’t afford the product they are looking for, which comes out of his paycheck each month.

12. ______is a 20-year-old student who studies really hard but has recently been failing his/her classes because of family issues that have been stressing him/her out. As a result of his/her failing grades, he/she got kicked off of the university basketball team, even though he/she had been practicing really hard and had been counting on getting scouted to a professional team.

Appendix C: Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form

Schadenfreude and Empathy Evaluation Form

Instructions: Please read each statement carefully and rate the degree to which you agree with the following statements.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1 ------2 ------3 ------4 ------5

There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. Give the answer that seems to best describe you.

1. I felt pleasure while reading the scenario. 2. I felt pain while reading the scenario. 3. I found the scenario funny. 4. I felt bad for the person in the scenario. 5. I enjoy what happened to the person in the scenario. 6. I felt sympathy for the person in the scenario. 7. I couldn’t resist a little smile at what happened in the scenario. 8. I feel sorry for what happened to the person in the scenario. 9. I actually had to laugh a bit at the scenario. 10. I empathize with (understand and share the feelings of) the person in the scenario.

Appendix D: Social Comparison Primes and Misfortune Vignettes (Study 3)

Social Comparison Primes

Upward Social Comparison

______is a 20-year-old UBC Okanagan student who gets straight A’s. He/she is also the star player on the Heat volleyball team and is on sports posters across campus. ______has had to be disciplined in the past because he/she made the new players on the team do his/her laundry, run his/her errands, and do his/her homework.

Lateral Social Comparison

______is a 20-year-old UBC Okanagan student who gets mostly B’s despite trying his/her best. He/she also plays on the Heat volleyball team. ______always watches out for his teammates and is always the first person at practice and the last one to leave.

Downward Social Comparison

______is a 20-year-old UBC Okanagan student who studies really hard but has recently been failing his/her classes. Even though he/she has been working hard to become a starter, he/she was recently suspended from the Heat volleyball team as a result of his/her failing grades.

Misfortune Vignettes

Control

______went skiing at Big White one weekend in January and caught his/her edge on ice causing him/her to fall and severely break his/her right arm. ______needed surgery and now has metal rods in his/her arm and shoulder. He/she cannot put any weight on his/her arm or shoulder for the next four months as it heals. This means that he/she cannot wear a backpack, carry his/her books, or write notes in class for the rest of the semester.

Physical Attractiveness Diminishing

______went skiing at Big White one weekend in January and caught his/her edge on ice causing him/her to fall and severely break his/her right arm. He/she also sliced his/her face on the ice when he/she fell which has left a large, permanent scar across his/her face. ______needed surgery and now has metal rods in his/her arm and shoulder. He/she cannot put any weight on his/her arm or shoulder for the next four months as it heals. This means that he/she cannot wear a backpack, carry his/her books, or write notes in class for the rest of the semester.

Financial Resource Diminishing

______went skiing at Big White one weekend in January and caught his/her edge on ice causing him/her to fall and severely break his/her right arm. ______needed surgery and now has metal rods in his/her arm and shoulder. His/her physicians have told him/her that he/she will never regain full mobility in his/her arm again, causing him/her to lose his/her scholarship and ruining

his/her chances of a professional volleyball career. He/she cannot put any weight on his/her arm or shoulder for the next four months as it heals. This means that he/she cannot wear a backpack, carry his/her books, or write notes in class for the rest of the semester.