Laughter As a Social Rejection Cue: Gelotophobia and Transient Cardiac Responses to Other Persons’ Laughter and Insult

Home , Insult, Social rejection

Psychophysiology, 51 (2014), 1112–1121. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Printed in the USA. Copyright © 2014 Society for Psychophysiological Research DOI: 10.1111/psyp.12259 Laughter as a social rejection cue: Gelotophobia and transient cardiac responses to other persons’ laughter and insult

ILONA PAPOUSEK,a NILÜFER AYDIN,b HELMUT K. LACKNER,c ELISABETH M. WEISS,a MARKUS BÜHNER,d GÜNTER SCHULTER,a CANICE CHARLESWORTH,e and H. HARALD FREUDENTHALERe aDepartment of Psychology, Biological Psychology Unit, University of Graz, Graz, Austria bDepartment of Psychology, Social Psychology Unit, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria cInstitute of Physiology, Medical University, Graz, Austria dDepartment of Psychology, Psychological Methodology and Assessment Unit, Ludwig-Maximilian-University of Munich, Munich, Germany eDepartment of Psychology, Psychological Assessment and Research Methods Unit, University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Abstract Other persons’ laughter, normally perceived as a signal that persons are friendly and inviting others to approach, can also be perceived as a cue of social rejection. In this study, prerecorded laughter was placed in a realistic and personally relevant context, and participants’ responses were related to gelotophobia, a trait predisposing to perceiving laughter as a cue of social rejection. Individuals with gelotophobia showed marked heart rate deceleration in response to the laughter stimulus, possibly indicating a “freezing-like” response. Moreover, cardiac responses to anger provocation by overtly insulting statements indicated heightened aggressive anger in response to cumulated social threat. The study adds to recent research showing speciﬁc cardiac responses to social rejection and to the literature on social rejection sensitivity by demonstrating the value of using well interpretable physiological measures in this research context. Descriptors: Transient heart rate response, Rejection sensitivity, Social threat, Immobilization, Laughter

Individuals have a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & High levels of rejection sensitivity may tremendously impact indi- Leary, 1995). Feeling socially excluded or rejected threatens viduals’ social relationships, because they are linked to heightened people’s mental and physical well-being, and a lack of social ties antisocial behavior in response to perceived rejection (Ayduk, can be associated with feelings of anxiety, loneliness, and depres- Gyurak, & Luerssen, 2008). sion (Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Williams, 2009; Zadro, Williams, So far, the theoretical framework of rejection sensitivity has & Richardson, 2004). Moreover, unmet belonging needs can have been unspecific in terms of potential rejection cues and has not potent effects on physiological indicators of heightened distress incorporated specific situations, such as other persons’ laughter. such as cortisol release and blood pressure (Dickerson, While in most cases perceived as a signal that persons are friendly, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2011; Dickerson & Zoccola, 2013), as trustworthy, playful, and nonthreatening, inviting others to well as on activation of brain regions such as the anterior cingulate approach (Harker & Keltner, 2001; Keating et al., 1981; LaFrance cortex that are associated with physical pain, suggesting that being & Hecht, 1995; Reis et al., 1990; Ruch, 1993), other persons’ excluded or rejected can literally hurt (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & laughter can also be perceived as a cue of social threat and rejec- Williams, 2003). tion, taking on the form of “laughing at” and ridicule (Ruch & As “social animals” (Aristotle, as cited in Simpson, 1997; Ekman, 2001; Szameitat et al., 2009). Individuals with Williams & Nida, 2011), human beings are inclined to seek accept- gelotophobia (from gelos, Greek for laughter) have a strong dispo- ance and avoid rejection (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, Williams, sition to assume that laughter in their presence is directed at them. 2007). However, the extent to which cues are identified as social They fear the laughter of other persons and are hypervigilant rejection cues and how individuals respond to such cues varies toward signs of derision and persons that might ridicule them greatly between individuals, with profound implications for their (Ruch, Hofmann, Platt, & Proyer, 2014; Ruch & Proyer, 2008a; social functioning and health (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Mogg, Titze, 2009). Gelotophobia is considered to occur along a contin- Philippot, & Bradley, 2004). The concept of “rejection sensitivity” uum in nonclinical populations, with levels exceeding a certain refers to these individual differences. It has been defined as the threshold considered as psychiatrically relevant (Ruch, 2009; disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and strongly react Ruch, Proyer, & Ventis, 2010). Similar to sensitivity to rejection, to social rejection, particularly in ambiguous situations (Downey & which is part of the defining criteria for social phobia/avoidant Feldman, 1996; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). personality disorder as well as other psychiatric diagnoses such as paranoid and schizotypal personality disorders (ICD-10; Dilling, Address correspondence to: Ilona Papousek, University of Graz, Mombour, & Schmidt, 2008), it was reported that 80 percent of Department of Psychology, Univ.-Platz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria. E-mail: individuals with gelotophobia were diagnosed with social phobia [email protected] and/or Cluster A (paranoid, schizotypal) personality disorder

bs_bs_banner 1112 Laughter as a social rejection cue 1113

(Weiss et al., 2012). Hence, the concept of gelotophobia is closely heart rate changes across a series of time frames of a few seconds, related to the concept of rejection sensitivity, but specifically refers which may supply relevant information not available from coarse to the fear and (mis)perception of other persons’ expressions of average values (e.g., Lackner, Batzel, Rössler, Hinghofer-Szalkay, cheerfulness. By examining groups of individuals with and without & Papousek, in press). gelotophobia and confronting them with laughter, the response to a Evidence suggests that the perception of social rejection is very specific stimulus can be examined which, depending on the indicated by extended heart rate deceleration, exceeding the brief individual’s disposition, can be (but not necessarily is) perceived as immediate slowing of heart rate (lasting a few seconds) that typi- a cue of social rejection. Moreover, other persons’ laughter can be cally follows confrontation with low or medium intensity stimuli incorporated in a realistic experimental design representing a situa- and which reflects an early perceptual process of stimulus registration frequently occurring in highly similar ways in everyday life. tion (Barry, MacDonald, & Rushby, 2011; MacDonald, Barry, & In addition to the disposition to misperceive laughter as a social Rushby, 2012). Compared to cues of social acceptance and unex- rejection cue, gelotophobia may be related to anger proneness. The pected nonsocial feedback stimuli, heart rate deceleration con- more broad concept of rejection sensitivity, too, has been related to tinued for a longer time after perceiving a cue of unexpected social poor emotion regulation as well as to hostility and overt aggression, rejection, which was interpreted as prolonged enhanced sensory particularly after incidents of social rejection (Jacobs & Harper, intake and attention, facilitating the processing of significant social 2013; Olsson, Carmona, Downey, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2013; information (Gunther Moor, Bos, Crone, & van der Molen, 2014; Romero-Canvas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk, & Kang, 2010). Gunther Moor, Crone, & van der Molen, 2010; van der Veen, van According to self-reports, individuals with gelotophobia are more der Molen, Sahibdin, & Franken, in press; see also Bradley & likely to experience anger, also in emotionally relatively neutral or Lang, 2007). In adolescent girls, putatively particularly sensitive to ambiguous interpersonal situations (Papousek et al., 2009; Weiss social rejection, the cardiac slowing was particularly pronounced et al., 2012). The disposition to experience anger may be socially (Gunther Moor et al., 2014). By also including overtly insulting relevant, because trait anger plays a role in aggressive behavior and stimuli, the present study allowed us to gain evidence on the dif- violence, particularly when coupled with defective emotion regu- ferential validity of this cardiac response that assumedly indicates lation (Harper, Austin, Cercone, & Arias, 2005; Shorey, Cornelius, the experience of social rejection. & Idema, 2011). In fact, anecdotal evidence suggesting that perpe- Anger responses, especially responses to harassment and insult, trators of violent acts such as school shootings had a horror of are typically accompanied by heart rate acceleration (for review, being mocked and may have taken revenge for having been laughed see Kreibig, 2010). Particularly, the approach motivational compo- at has fuelled the suspicion that gelotophobia may be linked to nent of anger (related to angry aggression; Carver & aggression and violence (Holden, 2009; Ruch, 2009, Ruch et al., Harmon-Jones, 2009) is associated with increased heart rates, 2014). Empirical findings showing a stronger tendency towards probably reflecting situation-appropriate activation and energy overt aggression in gelotophobics than in nonphobic controls, at mobilization (Kubo, Okanoya, & Kawai, 2012; Stemmler, Aue, & least according to self-report, lent support to this link (Weiss et al., Wacker, 2007). It has also been shown that more hostile individuals 2012). Accumulating evidence points towards an important asso- showed greater heart rate increases while having been harassed ciation between gelotophobia and poor emotion regulation than their less hostile counterparts, and their heart rate increases (Papousek et al., 2009; Weiss et al., 2012), and the close relation- correlated with anger and negative affect (Everson, McKey, & ship between aggression and hypervigilance towards stimuli that Lovallo, 1995; Miller, Dolgoy, Friese, & Sita, 1996; Suarez, Kuhn, could be perceived as threatening (Berkowitz, 1962; Dodge, 1991) Schanberg, Williams, & Zimmermann, 1998). However, in most complement this picture. Therefore, in addition to exposing indi- anger provocation studies, heart rate has been averaged over 60 s or viduals with and without gelotophobia to an interpersonal situation even longer intervals. Transient responses using higher time reso- involving laughter as a potential cue of social rejection, the present lutions have only been investigated following picture presentations study examined their responses to anger provocation by overtly of angry faces, which produced different patterns of cardiac insulting statements of the experimenters. responding because of their confounding with threat (Kreibig, Unlike previous research on responses to other persons’ laugh- 2010). ter and anger proneness in gelotophobia, which exclusively relied In the present study, participants with and without gelotophobia on self-reports, the present study examined transient cardiac performed mental arithmetic tasks for 5 min, sitting in a small responses to other persons’ laughter and to anger provocation. experimental room separated from the control room. While per- Compared to self-report or behavioral data, physiological forming the tasks, they were interrupted by two standardized (pre- responses have the advantage that they are not consciously con- recorded) insulting statements of the experimenters delivered trolled, and thus provide a more direct index of reactivity that through the intercom. Later, a short prerecorded track of laughter of bypass the regulatory controls exerted on overt behavior. Further- the experimenters was delivered through the intercom, as if the more, they are independent from participants’ ability or willingness intercom would have been activated by accident. Through the to accurately report on their own experience (Allen, Kuppens, & experimental design, the laughter stimulus was placed in a person- Sheeber, 2012; Blascovich, Seery, Mugridge, Norris, & Weisbuch, ally relevant context involving social interaction but without sug- 2004; Schwerdtfeger, 2004). This is particularly relevant in the case gesting a direct relation to an insulting statement. Control of gelotophobia, which is also characterized by a strong disposition conditions included interruption by a white noise stimulus instead to control the expression of affect and to appear inconspicuous, of the laughter and the performance of mental arithmetic tasks and, consequently, by striking emotional inexpressivity (Papousek without interruption. et al., 2009; Ruch & Proyer, 2008a; Titze, 2009). In addition, by We expected that individuals with gelotophobia would perceive using physiological indices more subtle or fleeting, changes can be the laughter stimulus as a cue of being laughed at and ridiculed and, examined that are difficult to capture with self-report or behavioral thus, of social rejection. Therefore, they would show a cardiac observation (Allen et al., 2012). Thus, the present study examined response pattern characteristic of perceptions of social rejection transient changes of cardiac activity, analyzing the time course of (i.e., extended heart rate deceleration). Furthermore, due to their 1114 I. Papousek et al. putative anger proneness, we expected individuals with Assessment of Gelotophobia gelotophobia to show more pronounced responses to the anger < > provocation, by showing more pronounced heart rate acceleration The Geloph 15 (Ruch & Proyer, 2008b) is a standardized self- following the insulting statements, than the gelotophobia-free report measure of gelotophobia including 15 items in a four-point = = group. answer format (1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree). The total score is calculated as the mean score of the 15 items. A sample item is “When others laugh in my presence, I get suspicious.” Method Cut-off scores were defined as follows: 1.0–2.0: no gelotophobia; 2.0–2.5: borderline fearful; 2.5–3.0: slight expression of Participants gelotophobia; 3.0–4.0: pronounced expression of gelotophobia. Participants were drawn from a large screening sample (n = 1,440) The distribution of scores of clinically diagnosed gelotophobics comprising university students from three local universities and a and the general population crosses at about 2.5 (Ruch, 2009). The < > variety of disciplines. They were screened using the standard diag- Geloph 15 was originally developed in German and has been nostic instrument for gelotophobia (Geloph<15>, Ruch & Proyer, psychometrically evaluated and validated in several other lan- 2008b). Individuals were invited to participate in the screening at guages including English (Platt, Proyer, & Ruch, 2009), Spanish the beginning of numerous lectures and via the universities’ e-mail (Carretero-Dios, Proyer, Ruch, & Rubio, 2010), French (Samson, lists. Participants who had suitable screening scores and had indi- Thibault, Proyer, & Ruch, 2010), Russian (Stefanenko, Ivanova, cated their phone numbers were personally called on their tele- Enikopolov, Proyer, & Ruch, 2011), and Hebrew (Sarid, Ruch, & phones to invite them for the main study. The study was advertised Proyer, 2011). In the present study, the original German version as a study on the relationships between emotional behavior, cog- was used (Ruch & Proyer, 2008b). Estimates of the prevalence of < > ≥ nitive abilities, and cardiac activity. Participants were promised gelotophobia (Geloph 15 score 2.5) in the general European (and paid) €10 for participating in the main study. Eight percent of population range between 6 to 10 percent (Carretero-Dios et al., the screening sample reached the cut-off score for gelotophobia 2010; Proyer, Ruch, & Chen, 2012; Ruch & Proyer, 2008a; Samson < > (≥ 2.5). et al., 2010). Geloph 15 scores are typically independent from Twenty-four individuals reaching the cut-off score for gender (Ruch et al., 2014). gelotophobia (≥ 2.5) agreed to participate in the study, and 36 controls without gelotophobia (scores < 2.0), matched for age and Recording and Quantification of Cardiac Responses study field, were included. Five participants of the gelotophobia group quit the experiment early and are therefore not included in The electrocardiogram (ECG) was recorded using a Brain Vision the data set. Three participants (all in the nongelotophobic group) BrainAmp ExG research amplifier (Brain Products, sampling rate were excluded because of cannabis abuse. Three participants of the 500 Hz), using Ag-AgCl electrodes and a standard limb lead II nongelotophobic group were lost because they failed to complete electrode configuration. The raw signal was visually inspected for the psychiatric interview or the rating scales. Seven participants (1 artifacts. Interbeat intervals were derived using QRS complex in the gelotophobia group, 6 in the nongelotophobic group) were detection based on Hilbert transformation (Harke, Schlögl, lost because of missing heart rate data due to technical failure or Anderer, & Pfurtscheller, 1999; Nygards & Sörnmo, 1983) and movement artifacts. were resampled at 4 Hz using piecewise cubic spline interpolation The final sample comprised 18 participants with gelotophobia for the analysis of transient heart rate responses. Heart rate time (13 women, age range 19–31 years, M = 24.3, SD = 3.9) and 24 series from 4 s preceding stimulus onset to 20 s after stimulus onset participants without gelotophobia (12 women, age range 19–28 were segmented in 4-s intervals. Four-second intervals were chosen years, M = 21.8, SD = 2.5). The mean Geloph<15> scores in the to reduce breathing frequency effects. Respiratory activity consid- gelotophobia and the nongelotophobic group were M = 2.9 erably modifies heart rate oscillations (Berntson, Cacioppo, & (SD = 0.3; Min = 2.53, Max = 3.33) and M = 1.3 (SD = 0.2; Quigley, 1993; Eckberg, 2003). Given the typical breathing fre- Min = 1.00, Max = 1.64), respectively. Five participants in the quency of healthy individuals of 15 1/min (4 s), averaging across gelotophobia group exceeded the threshold for pronounced expres- 4-s intervals markedly reduces the influence of respiration, and thus sion of gelotophobia (≥ 3.0). None of the participants were taking reduces noise in the data. Considering the temporal characteristics psychoactive medication or medication affecting the cardiovascu- of the expected responses, 4-s intervals had no disadvantages com- lar system. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I pared to, for example, second-per-second values. Values for these Disorders (SCID-I; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 2002) and six 4-s intervals (in beats per minute [bpm]) were used in the the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality statistical analyses. Interbeat intervals were used for calculating the Disorders (SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, average heart rate for the arithmetic task block without interruption 1997) were administered to all participants for obtaining diagnoses and the rest period preceding it. of social phobia and Cluster A personality disorders (schizoid, paranoid, schizotypal), respectively. Of the participants in the Self-Reported Irritation gelotophobia group, 6 had a diagnosis of paranoid or schizotypal personality disorder, 5 had a diagnosis of social phobia, and 4 had Rating scales (visual analogue scales scored in mm from 0 to 100) a combined social phobia and Cluster A diagnosis. In the were used for retrospectively assessing how irritated the partici- nongelotophobic group, none were diagnosed with social phobia or pants felt during the task blocks (embedded in a set of distractor Cluster A personality disorders. items). The stem for the ratings was “Please use the following scale The study was performed in accordance with the American to indicate the amount of each feeling you were experiencing Psychological Association’s Ethics Code and the 1964 Declaration during the performance task you just completed” (cf. Mauss, Cook, of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee. & Gross, 2007). Participants completed the rating scales using the Written consent was obtained from all participants. computer mouse. Laughter as a social rejection cue 1115

Experimental Stimuli on the following block low, each of the three mental arithmetic task blocks was followed by a 180-s rest period, a 300-s filler task Laughter. A short prerecorded track of laughter of both experi- (computer game Tetris), and another 180-s rest period. After each menters (of which one was male, one female; duration 5 s) was rest period following a mental arithmetic block, the set of rating used that had been rated as cheerful and benign by healthy (not scales appeared on the screen. gelotophobic) individuals in pretests, and that sounded as if the The experimental protocol was set up to realistically place the intercom would have been activated by accident. It started with laughter stimulus in a personally relevant context involving social the clicking noise of activating the intercom, ended with the interaction. In one of the three arithmetic task blocks, two insulting clicking noise of deactivating the intercom, and was delivered via statements (one spoken by the male, one by the female experi- loudspeakers placed out of sight of the participants, in order to menter, in counterbalanced order) were delivered 30 s and 70 s maintain authenticity. The speaker output was calibrated so that after task onset, and the laughter stimulus was delivered 150 s after the sound level was approximately 74 dB (instantaneous rise onset of the task block. In one arithmetic task block, two insulting time). It was delivered 150 s after the onset of the respective task statements (one spoken by the male, one by the female experi- period without suggesting a direct relation to an insulting menter, in counterbalanced order) were delivered 60 s and 80 s statement. after task onset, and the short track of white noise was delivered 150 s after task onset. The slight variation in timing of the insults White noise stimulus. A white noise stimulus with similar physi- ensured that the stimuli continued to be unexpected, which may cal characteristics as the laughter stimulus was used as a control, in affect the cardiac responses, and helped to maintain the authentic order to examine whether individuals with gelotophobia might nature of the experiment. During the third arithmetic task block, show different responses to all interruptive and aversive stimuli. participants were not interrupted. Order of arithmetic task blocks Just as the laughter stimulus, the white noise stimulus started and (anger provocation and laughter, anger provocation and white ended with the clicking noise of the intercom, and was matched noise, no interruption) was counterbalanced. with the laughter stimulus for sound level, duration, and rise time At the end of the protocol, participants were asked to rate the (instantaneous). experimenters’ competence (nine ratings, e.g., “The experimenters are well trained for this kind of work”; Huber, Hauke, & Gramer, Insulting statements. Four standardized (prerecorded) state- 1988). This method has been shown to considerably accelerate ments were used (in German), each lasting for approximately 5 s, subjective and cardiovascular recovery from anger provocation, with matched sound levels (approximately 74 dB), and starting and thus ensured ethical tenability of the procedure (Huber et al., and ending with the same clicking noises of the intercom as the 1988; Lai & Linden, 1992). laughter and the white noise stimuli. The statements expressed The clinical interview was conducted in a separate session. negative performance feedback in an insulting manner: “I don’t Participants received written debriefing information after conclu- know if you realize that we make an effort here. Somehow I have sion of the experiments. the feeling that you don’t”; “I have no idea why you take so long to do this, actually these tasks are child’s play”; “May I ask you to work more carefully. Till now your performance has been modest at best”; “Please try a little harder. After all, you get paid Statistical Analysis for your participation.” To exclude possible effects of the exper- The main research questions concerning the effects of gelotophobia imenter’s gender, two of the statements were spoken by the on the transient heart rate responses to the laughter stimulus and the female, and two by the male experimenter. In each of the two insults were tested using 6 × 2 analyses of variance (ANOVAs), task periods including anger provocation, two of the four state- with time frame (six 4-s intervals from 4 s preceding stimulus onset ments (one of the male, one of the female experimenter) were to 20 s after stimulus onset) as within-subjects factor and group delivered at predetermined times during the first 80 s of the task (gelotophobia yes vs. no) as between-subjects factor. One analysis period (in counterbalanced order). each was conducted to analyze the effect of the laughter stimulus, Procedure the white noise stimulus, the equivalent time period in the interruption-free task block, and the first and second insults. All experiments were conducted by the same two experimenters (Values for the two insulting statements that were delivered first (one male, one female). Participants were seated in a comfortable were averaged and were analyzed separately from the mean of the chair in the experimental room, which was electrically shielded and two following statements, because evidence suggested that effects sound attenuated, and which was separated from the control room. of anger elicitors may cumulate over repeated provocation, and While attaching the ECG electrodes, the experimenter explained thus the effect may be more pronounced after the second harass- that they would be able to observe the participant by a camera ment than after the first one; e.g., McClelland, Jones, & Gregg, during the whole procedure, and that the two rooms were con- 2009). Supplementary analyses were done to test for potential nected by an intercom. Participants were instructed about the tasks, group differences before stimulus onset. The activating effect of the and some practice trials were given. The experimenter emphasized mental arithmetic task as such was tested by comparing the average that it would be very important that the participant did his or her heart rate during the interruption-free arithmetic task block with best, because performance on the tasks would provide predictive that during the rest period preceding it ina2(Task: interruption- value about their study success, and that participants showing par- free mental arithmetic vs. no task) × 2 (Group) ANOVA. Irritation ticularly poor or superior performance would be later informed. ratings were analyzed ina3(TaskCondition: interruption-free, One block of tasks lasted for 300 s. A standardized computerized insult and laughter, insult and white noise) × 2 (Group) ANOVA. In mental arithmetic protocol was applied that has been used in pre- case of violation of the sphericity assumption, Greenhouse-Geisser vious psychophysiological studies (e.g., Lackner et al., 2011). To adjustment was used. Estimates of effect size are reported using 2 keep influences of the incidents in one mental arithmetic task block partial eta squared ()ηp . 1116 I. Papousek et al.

2 5 1 4 0 Gelotophobia 3 Gelotophobia -1 2 No No -2 1 -3 Yes 0 Yes -4 -1 -5 -2 Heart rate change (bpm) change rate Heart

-6 Heart rate change (bpm) -3 -7 -4 -8 -5 -4..0 0..4 5..8 9..12 13..16 17..20 -4..0 0..4 5..8 9..12 13..16 17..20 Seconds Seconds

Figure 1. Transient heart rate responses to other persons’ laughter. Figure 2. Transient heart rate responses to white noise stimulus. Heart rate Significant interaction effect Time Frame × Group. Heart rate values values referenced to the 4-s frame preceding stimulus onset. Second zero referenced to the 4-s frame preceding stimulus onset. Second zero denotes denotes stimulus onset. Significant main effect of time frame. No stimulus onset. significant differences between groups.

Results white noise) and during the respective time frame in the Transient Heart Rate Responses to Laughter interruption-free task condition showed that there were no differences between the groups before stimulus onset (group, Transient heart rate responses differed between groups as indicated F(1,40) = 0.1, ns.; Task Period × Group, F(2,80) = 0.6, ns.). by the significant interaction effect Time Frame × Group, However, at the analyzed time, heart rates were higher in the two = < η2 = F(3.5,139.7) 3.1, p .05, p .07; main effect time frame, task conditions that had included insulting statements (before = < η2 = F(3.5,139.7) 4.0, p .01, p .07; main effect group, laughter: M = 94.6, SD = 16.8; before white noise: M = 92.9, F(1,40) = 0.4, ns.). Figure 1 illustrates that participants in the SD = 19.8) than in the task condition without interruption gelotophobia group showed clearly more pronounced and sus- (M = 88.4, SD = 14.1; main effect task condition, F(2,80) = 4.4, 2 tained heart rate deceleration in response to the laughter stimulus as p < .05, ηp = 010. ). This indicates that the anger provocation had compared to participants without gelotophobia. (To illustrate the some lasting effect, which did not differ between the groups, transient heart rate response and facilitate comparisons between though. groups, heart rate values referenced to the 4-s frame preceding stimulus onset are used in the figures). The gelotophobia-free Transient Heart Rate Responses to Insulting Statements group also showed significant initial heart rate deceleration (difference between second time frame after stimulus onset to time frame The first insulting statements (delivered at seconds 30 or 60) elic- preceding stimulus onset; M = 92.0, SD = 19.1; M = 94.7, ited an orienting response, which did not differ between groups; SD = 19.6; t(23) = 3.0, p < .01, which quickly returned to baseline that is, a heart deceleration that quickly recovered (time frame, = < η2 = × values, though. In contrast, the heart rate of participants in the F(3.2,129) 6.2, p .001, p 014. ; Time Frame Group, gelotophobia group continued to slow down until it reached a F(3.2,129) = 0.3, ns.; group, F(1,40) = 1.2, ns.; Figure 3). decrease of M =−7.2 (SD = 9.4) 20 s after onset of the laughter However, transient responses to the second insults (delivered at stimulus, compared to the time frame preceding the stimulus. seconds 70 or 80) evidently differed from the first responses, and The groups did not differ in their transient heart rate responses to the white noise stimulus (interaction time Frame × Group, F(5,200) = 0.6, ns.). Both groups showed heart rate changes mir- 2 roring a typical “defense” response with initial fast heart rate accel- 1 eration, deceleration, and a second accelerative component 0 Gelotophobia (Graham & Clifton, 1966; Vila et al., 2007). The responses are -1 shown in Figure 2 (main effect time frame, F(5,200) = 4.6, No -2 p < .005, η2 = 010. ; main effect group, F(1,40) = 0.1, ns.). Men p -3 Yes and women did not differ in their responses to the laughter stimulus -4 (Time Frame × Sex, F(5,200) = 1.7, ns.) or in their responses to the -5 white noise stimulus (Time Frame × Sex, F(5,200) = 1.4, ns.).

Heart rate change (bpm) -6 For the purpose of comparison, the same time frames were also -7 extracted from the mental arithmetic task period without interrup- -8 tion (i.e., six 4-s frames beginning at second 150 minus 4). No -4..0 0..4 5..8 9..12 13..16 17..20 significant differences between groups or significant heart rate changes over time were observed (group, F(1,40) = 0.3, ns.; time Seconds = × = frame, F(5,200) 1.2, ns.; Group Time Frame, F(5,200) 1.3, Figure 3. Transient heart rate responses to first insult. Insulting statement ns.). delivered at second 30 (60). Heart rate values referenced to the 4-s frame An ANOVAcomparing the heart rates of the two groups during preceding stimulus onset. Second zero denotes stimulus onset. Significant the 4-s time frames preceding the onset of the stimuli (laughter, main effect of time frame. No significant differences between groups. Laughter as a social rejection cue 1117

6 block without interruption (task condition, F(2,80) = 3.9, p < .05, 2 5 ηp = .09; anger provocation and white noise: M = 43.0, SD = 27.7; 4 Gelotophobia anger provocation and laughter: M = 40.8, SD = 27.7; no interrup- 3 tion: M = 31.5, SD = 24.2), conﬁrming effectiveness of the anger No 2 provocation. However, no differences were observed between the 1 Yes groups (Task Condition × Group, F(2,80) = 1.0, ns.; group, 0 F(2,80) = 0.1, ns.). -1

Heart rate change (bpm) -2 Discussion -3 -4 The present study started with the observation that people vary -4..0 0..4 5..8 9..12 13..16 17..20 greatly in the extent to which they identify cues as social rejection Seconds cues and in how they respond to such cues. The study revealed that, besides the well-documented concept of rejection sensitivity, Figure 4. Transient heart rate responses to second insult. Significant another, more specific disposition may play a crucial role in this interaction effect Time Frame × Group. Insulting statement delivered at context, that is, gelotophobia, the fear of other persons’ laughter, second 70 (80). Heart rate values referenced to the 4-s frame preceding which can be perceived as a cue of social threat and rejection. Our stimulus onset. Second zero denotes stimulus onset. experiment demonstrated characteristic transient heart rate responses to other persons’ laughter and insulting statements in clearly differed between groups: Participants in the group without individuals diagnosed with gelotophobia, which are in line with gelotophobia showed an attenuated orienting response, which may what was expected due to the close relationship of gelotophobia to be interpreted as habituated response. By contrast, participants social rejection sensitivity and its presumed link to anger and with gelotophobia responded with clear heart rate acceleration aggression proneness. to the insults (Figure 4; interaction effect Time Frame × The stimulus comprising other persons’ laughter was placed in 2 a personally relevant context involving social interaction ensuring Group, F(5,200) = 2.7, p < .05, ηp = .06; main effect time 2 that it could be, but not necessarily had to be, perceived as a cue of frame, F(5,200) = 2.8, p < .05, ηp = .07; main effect group, F(1,40) = 0.04, ns.). The increase from the time frame 5–8 s to the social rejection. Whereas participants without gelotophobia time frame 9–12 s in the gelotophobia group was statistically sig- responded to the laughter of the two experimenters with moderate nificant, t(17) = 3.1, p < .01. brief heart rate deceleration, presumably reflecting stimulus The heart rates of the two groups did not differ during the time registration/orienting (Barry et al. 2011; MacDonald et al., 2012), frame preceding the first statements, t(40) = 0.9, ns., nor in the time individuals with gelotophobia showed a cardiac response suppos- frame preceding the second statements, t(40) = 0.5, ns.1 Men and edly characteristic of perceptions of social rejection (Gunther Moor women did not differ in their responses to the first insulting state- et al., 2010, 2014; van der Veen et al., in press). The heart rates of ments (Time Frame × Sex, F(3.3,132) = 1.4, ns.). However, their individuals with gelotophobia continued to slow down for several responses to the second statements were statistically different seconds and in total showed a marked and sustained decrease after 2 2 confrontation with the social stimulus. This is in line with the (Time Frame × Sex, F(3.8,168.6) = 2.5, p < .05, ηp = .06). Comparison of the average heart rates during the arithmetic task notion that individuals with gelotophobia are prone to perceive block without interruption and the rest period preceding it showed other persons’ laughter as a cue of being laughed at and ridiculed that the mental arithmetic task had a marked activating effect, and, hence, of social rejection. Compared to previous studies in which was equal in both groups (task, F(1,40) = 82.0, p < .001, healthy individuals, which showed heart rate decreases of about 2 1 bpm shortly after the perception of social rejection (Gunther ηp = .67; Task × Group, F(1,40) = 1.8, ns.; group, F(1,40) = 0.7, ns.; rest: M = 77.2, SD = 9.3; arithmetic task block: M = 89.5, Moor et al., 2010, 2014; van der Veen et al., in press), the response SD = 13.3). There was no sex difference in the effect of the mental in the gelotophobia group was markedly more pronounced arithmetic tasks (Task × Sex, F(1,40) = 0.0, ns.) (immediate heart rate deceleration about 3 bpm, deceleration after 20 s about 7 bpm), and it appeared to have lasted longer. In the Self-Reported Irritation studies of Gunther Moor et al. and van der Veen et al., perception of social rejection was induced by the bogus information that another Participants indicated having been more irritated during the task person who rated a photograph of the participant, and of whom the blocks incorporating insulting statements than during the task participant thought he or she would like him/her, had decided to not like the person in the picture, which was an effective but probably 1. Controlling for baseline levels by using prestimulus heart rate as a less powerful stimulus. covariate in the analyses did not change the statistical results In line with traditional cognitive interpretations of transient (Group × Time Frame interactions: laughter: F(3,118) = 2.8, p < .05, heart rate deceleration (see, e.g., Bradley & Lang, 2007; Graham & η2 = = < η2 = p .07; second insult: F(4,156) 2.8, p .05, p .07; white noise, no Clifton, 1966), Gunther Moor et al. (2010, 2014) interpreted the interruption, first insult: ns.). sustained heart rate slowing following the perception of social 2. To additionally secure our findings against the potential confound of gelotophobia group with gender, we randomly eliminated men from the rejection as prolonged enhanced sensory intake and attention, nongelotophobic group until the proportion of men and women was the thereby facilitating the processing of significant social information. same as in the gelotophobia group, and repeated the analyses with this This interpretation is consistent with the proposed hypervigilance reduced, gender-matched sample. These analyses yielded virtually identical toward signs of potential derision in individuals with gelotophobia. results as the analyses in the total sample (Group × Time Frame interac- 2 Finally, the marked heart rate deceleration in participants with tions: laughter: F(3.8,124.5) = 3.5, p < .05, ηp = .10; second insult: 2 gelotophobia may have been an expression of actual fear. Labora- F(5,165) = 2.8, p < .05, ηp = .08; white noise, no interruption, first insult: ns.). tory fear inductions often produce cardiac acceleration. However, 1118 I. Papousek et al. several studies reported heart rate deceleration in response to fear acceleration after having been insulted (indicating energy mobili- elicitors. It has been suggested that responses to fear elicitors zation; Wright & Gendolla, 2012), which was not observed in the implicating a higher degree of self-involvement and imminence of group without gelotophobia. This cardiac response pattern suggests threat are characterized by immobilization (“freezing”) rather than rising approach-oriented (aggressive) anger in response to overt preparation of active coping and, therefore, by heart rate decelera- insult in participants with gelotophobia, while gelotophobia-free tion (“fear bradycardia”; Adenauer, Catani, Keil, Aichinger, & participants may have responded less or with passive or Neuner, 2010; Campbell, Wood, & McBride, 1997; Hagenaars, withdrawal-oriented anger that is not necessarily associated with Stins, & Roelofs, 2012; Kreibig, 2010; Lang et al., 2011; Volchan increased heart rates (Stemmler et al., 2007). Note that participants et al., 2011). In the particular context of the present study, respond- without gelotophobia also reported more subjective irritation after ing with immobilization is in line with the idea that ridicule has an the task blocks including insults than after the interruption-free task inhibitory effect, thereby stopping ongoing behavior that was dis- period, indicating that anger had also been induced in that group. approved by having been laughed at (or putatively disapproved in Interestingly, differences between participants with and without the case of gelotophobia), and minimizing the changes of drawing gelotophobia were only observed in response to the second insult- attention to oneself (Janes & Olson, 2000). The interpretation is ing statement, whereas the first statement seemed to have only also supported by social-psychological research showing that evoked an orienting response in both groups. Thus, participants experiences of social exclusion may trigger a freezing-like with gelotophobia apparently did not yet interpret the first insult as response involving symptoms of “cognitive deconstruction” such self-threatening and important, but only the accumulation of insults as emotional numbness, reports of time as standing still, lethargy, led to perceptions of threat and self-relevance and, consequently, to and avoidance of self-focused attention (Baumeister, 1990; DeWall aggressive anger. This finding may be related to the typical & Baumeister, 2006; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). It behavioral pattern of perpetrators of aggressive acts, who are has been suggested that this response pattern may be particularly inconspicuous and passive for some time, until the accumulation of characteristic of incidents of social exclusion that are perceived as actual or putative victimization may eventually erupt into violence, severe (Bernstein & Claypool, 2012). These considerations are in a tendency which may be linked to gelotophobia (Holden, 2009; line with the notion that individuals with gelotophobia have inter- Ruch, 2009; Ruch et al., 2014). The present findings seem to indi- preted the laughter as an act of being laughed at, thus perceiving it cate that, in individuals with gelotophobia, aggressive tendencies as an immediate social threat comparable to severe social injury. were already there at the second insult in succession. In future Note that the two interpretations of the pronounced heart rate research, it may be interesting to track the development of deceleration in individuals with gelotophobia are not mutually responses over longer episodes of insults or repeated incidents. exclusive but may be interrelated (“attentive immobility”). The link between gelotophobia with anger and aggression More unspecific interpretations can be excluded by the pattern proneness may in part be explained by its association with poor of responses in the control conditions. The aversive white noise emotion regulation capacities. Basic processes contributing to stimulus elicited a classic cardiac defense response with cardiac heightened levels of trait anger and aggression in the general popu- acceleration, deceleration, and again acceleration as it is typically lation as well as in psychiatric patients (Weiss, 2012; Wilkowski & produced by unexpected aversive auditory stimuli (Vila et al., Robinson, 2010) include the tendency to attribute hostile traits to 2007). Individuals with and without gelotophobia did not differ in other persons (see also Dodge, 1993; McNiel, Eisner, & Binder, their responses to the white noise stimulus, excluding the possibil- 2003; Weiss et al., 2006), which may be in line with the disposition ity that individuals with gelotophobia might show different of individuals with gelotophobia to assume that laughter in their responses to all stimuli or to all interruptive or aversive stimuli. presence is directed at them and thus hostile, and poor regulation of Comparison with the time course of the heart rate during the same angry thoughts and feelings (see also Davidson, Putnam, & Larson, time interval in the interruption-free task period excludes the pos- 2000). Previous research has demonstrated that, compared to sibility that the heart rates of individuals with gelotophobia may nongelotophobic persons, individuals with gelotophobia felt weak simply have slowed down with advancing duration of the task. at regulating their emotions, and the approaches they typically use Finally, stimulation with overtly insulting statements of the experi- to manage their emotions were considered inefficient by experts menters provoked cardiac responses that were qualitatively clearly (Papousek et al., 2009; Weiss et al., 2012). However, in opposition different from those to the laughter stimulus. This excludes the to the poor emotion regulation, gelotophobia seems to be related to possibility that individuals with gelotophobia might show pro- a strong tendency to control emotional expressive behavior and to nounced and sustained cardiac deceleration to every human utter- generally maintain an inconspicuous appearance, which gives indi- ance or, even more important, to every annoying human utterance. viduals with gelotophobia the overcontrolled appearance reported The different patterns of responses also show that cardiac responses in clinical case studies (Titze, 2009). This behavioral tendency of to social rejection can be dissociated from anger responses. individuals with gelotophobia may explain why the objective tran- Interruption of ongoing task performance by insulting state- sient heart rate responses to the anger provocation markedly dif- ments is a classic procedure to experimentally provoke anger (e.g., fered between participants with and without gelotophobia, but the Andersen, Linden, & Habra, 2005; Denson, Ronay, von Hippel, & self-reported irritation did not. Added to this, elevated alexithymia Schira, 2013; Mauss et al., 2007; Mauss, Evers, Wilhelm, & Gross, scores suggest that individuals with gelotophobia are not able to 2006; Miller et al., 1996; Suarez & Williams, 1989), with empiri- report on their current feelings accurately and in sufficient detail cally confirmed effectivity irrespective of participants suspecting (Weiss et al., 2012). Due to the high comorbidity with Cluster A the deception (Linden, Ellis, & Millman, 2010). The transient heart personality disorders (Weiss et al., 2012), they may have particular rate responses to the insulting statements observed in the present difficulties to retrospectively rate evoked emotions (i.e., in the study supported previous indications that gelotophobia may be absence of the stimulus), as was observed in schizophrenia spec- related to heightened proneness to experience anger, so far having trum disorders (Ursu et al., 2011). relied on self-report only (Papousek et al., 2009; Weiss et al., Related to that, other emotions may accompany the experience 2012). Participants with gelotophobia showed clear heart rate of social rejection when individuals with gelotophobia are con- Laughter as a social rejection cue 1119 fronted with laughter. While having the participants reflect about Further research is needed to determine whether similar their feelings during or shortly after each provocation would clearly responses to laughter can also be demonstrated without prior insult. have ruined the particularly realistic experimental procedure of the Comparison of the effects of laughter with and without prior insult present study, it may be interesting to study the quality of these cannot be realized in one and the same study, because the order of emotions in future studies, despite the difficulties to obtain reliable the two conditions would have to be balanced, and thus no condi- reports from individuals with gelotophobia. Previous research sug- tion would be entirely free from prior insult. Clinical case studies gested that, in gelotophobia, experienced and attributed feelings (to strongly suggest that strong negative responses of individuals with those laughing) may be contaminated with a variety of (probably gelotophobia to laughter of other persons do not depend on prior poorly differentiated) negative emotions (e.g., Papousek et al., insult or even prior interaction (e.g., Titze, 2009), a finding which 2009; Ruch, Altfreder, & Proyer, 2009). However, studying the is well replicated in psychometric studies (Ruch et al., 2014). actual feelings at the very moment when individuals with Taken together, the present findings add to the literature in gelotophobia are confronted with other persons’ laughter will only several ways. Using other persons’ laughter as a potential social be possible using physiological measures. A limitation of the rejection cue and examining individuals with and without present research is that respiration was not explicitly controlled for, gelotophobia, the relationship between responses to a very spe- and thus heart rate was averaged across 4-s intervals to adjust for cific stimulus and a trait predisposing to perceiving that particular this, thereby losing some potentially interesting level of detail. stimulus as a cue of social rejection could be examined. Individ- Future studies may gain from recording respiration and removing uals with gelotophobia showed a marked and sustained decrease its influence on an individual basis, thus allowing an even higher of the heart rate in response to the laughter stimulus, indicating time resolution of the cardiac data. that laughter is indeed perceived as a social rejection cue in this A further potential expansion in future studies (and larger group (but not, for instance, as an overt insult, which provoked samples) may be to study responses in individuals with qualitatively different responses). Further, the findings suggest a gelotophobia and a diagnosis of social phobia versus gelotophobia link between gelotophobia, which is conceptually close to the and a Cluster A personality disorder. Likewise, three positively concept of rejection sensitivity, and a tendency towards height- correlated but psychometrically distinguishable components of ened aggressive anger in response to cumulated social threat. gelotophobia were identified, that is, paranoid sensitivity to ridi- Finally, the present study provided evidence of the validity of the cule, coping with derision, and excessive responses to being observed specific transient cardiac response as an indicator of the laughed at (Platt, Ruch, Hofmann, & Proyer, 2012). It may be experience of social rejection and demonstrated the value of interesting to see which of these components explains most of the using good interpretable physiological measures in this research variance of the responses to other persons’ laughter. context.

References

Adenauer, H., Catani, C., Keil, J., Aichinger, H., & Neuner, F. (2010). Is psychophysiological implications. Psychophysiology, 30, 183–196. doi: freezing an adaptive reaction to threat? Evidence from heart rate reac- 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb01731.x tivity to emotional pictures in victims of war and torture. Blascovich, J., Seery, M. D., Mugridge, C. A., Norris, K., & Weisbuch, M. Psychophysiology, 47, 315–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009 (2004). Predicting athletic performance from cardiovascular indexes of .00940.x challenge and threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, Allen, N. B., Kuppens, P., & Sheeber, L. B. (2012). Heart rate responses to 683–688. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.007 parental behavior in depressed adolescents. Biological Psychology, 90, Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2007). Emotion and motivation. In J. T. 80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.02.013 Cacioppo & G. Berntson (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. Andersen, J., Linden, W., & Habra, M. (2005). The importance of exam- 581–608). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/ ining blood pressure reactivity and recovery in anger provocation CBO9780511546396.025 research. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 57, 159–163. doi: Campbell, B. A., Wood, G., & McBride, T. (1997). Origins of orienting and 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.12.011 defensive responses: An evolutionary perspective. In P. J. Lang, R. F. Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). Individual differences in the Simons, & M. T. Balaban (Eds.), Attention and orienting: Sensory and rejection-aggression link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejec- motivational processes (pp. 41–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum tion sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 775– Associates. 782. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.004 Carretero-Dios, H., Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Rubio, V. J. (2010). The Barry, R. J., MacDonald, B., & Rushby, J. A. (2011). Single-trial event- Spanish version of the GELOPH<15>: Properties of a questionnaire for related potentials and the orienting reﬂex to monaural tones. Interna- the assessment of the fear of being laughed at. International Journal of tional Journal of Psychophysiology, 79, 127–136. doi: 10.1016/ Clinical and Health Psychology, 10, 345–357. j.ijpsycho.2010.09.010 Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from the self. Psychological affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183– Review, 97, 90–113. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.90 204. doi: 10.1037/a0013965 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho- neural circuitry of emotion regulation—A possible prelude to violence. logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3 Science, 289, 591–594. doi: 10.1126/science.289.5479.591 .497 Denson, T. F., Ronay, R., von Hippel, W., & Schira, M. M. (2013). Endog- Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. enous testosterone and cortisol modulate neural responses during Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195. induced anger control. Social Neuroscience, 8, 165–177. doi: 10.1080/ Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis.New 17470919.2012.655425 York, NY: McGraw-Hill. DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Social exclusion and pain Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain thresh- sensitivity: Why exclusion sometimes hurts and sometimes numbs. Per- old, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 185–196. doi: 10.1177/ Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0146167211422449 3514.91.1.1 Berntson, G. G., Cacioppo, J. T., & Quigley, K. S. (1993). Respiratory sinus Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2011). Physiologi- arrhythmia: Autonomic origins, physiological mechanisms, and cal effects of social threat: Implications for health. In J. Cacioppo & 1120 I. Papousek et al.

J. Decety (Eds.), Handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 787–803). Jacobs, N., & Harper, B. (2013). The effects of rejection sensitivity on New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/ reactive and proactive aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 3–12. doi: 9780195342161.013.0052 10.1002/ab.21455 Dickerson, S. S., & Zoccola, P. M. (2013). Cortisol responses to social Janes, L. M., & Olson, J. M. (2000). Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects exclusion. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social of observing the ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology exclusion (pp. 143–151). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: Bulletin, 26, 474–485. doi: 10.1177/0146167200266006 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398700.013.0014 Keating, C. F., Mazur, A., Segall, M. H., Cysneiros, P. G., Divale, W. T., Dilling, H., Mombour, W., & Schmidt, M. H. (2008). Internationale Kilbride, J. E., . . . Wirsing, R. (1981). Culture and the perception of Klassifikation psychischer Störungen ICD-10 [International statistical social dominance from facial expression. Journal of Personality and classification of diseases and related health problems ICD-10] (6th ed.). Social Psychology, 40, 615–626. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.40.4 Bern, Switzerland: Huber. .615 Dodge, K. A. (1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive Kreibig, S. D. (2010). Autonomic nervous system activity in emotion: A aggression. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and review. Biological Psychology, 84, 394–421. doi: 10.1037/0022- treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Law- 3514.40.4.615 rence Erlbaum. Kubo, K., Okanoya, K., & Kawai, N. (2012). Apology isn’t good enough: Dodge, K. A. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of An apology suppresses an approach motivation but not the physiologi- conduct disorder and depression. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, cal and psychological anger. PLoS One, 7, e33006. doi: 10.1371/ 449–584. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.003015 journal.pone.0033006 Downey, G., & Feldman, S. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for Lackner, H. K., Batzel, J. J., Rössler, A., Hinghofer-Szalkay, H., & intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Papousek, I. (in press). Multi-time scale perspective in analysing car- 70, 1327–1343. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327 diovascular data. Physiological Research. Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The Lackner, H. K., Papousek, I., Batzel, J. J., Roessler, A., Scharfetter, H., & self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and Hinghofer-Szalkay, H. (2011). Phase synchronization of hemodynamic rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social variables and respiration during mental challenge. International Journal Psychology, 75, 545–560. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.545 of Psychophysiology, 79, 401–409. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.01.001 Eckberg, D. L. (2003). The human respiratory gate. Journal of Physiology, LaFrance, M., & Hecht, M. A. (1995). Why smiles generate leniency. 548, 339–352. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2002.037192 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 207–214. doi: 10.1177/ Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does 0146167295213002 rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290– Lai, J. Y., & Linden, W. (1992). Gender, expression style, and opportunity 292. doi: 10.1126/science.1089134 for anger release determine cardiovascular reaction to and recovery Everson, S. A., McKey, B. S., & Lovallo, W. R. (1995). Effect of trait from anger provocation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 54, 297–310. hostility on cardiovascular responses to harassment in young men. Inter- Lang, P. J., Wangelin, B. C., Bradley, M. M., Versace, F., Davenport, P. W., national Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2, 172–191. doi: 10.1207/ & Costa, V. D. (2011). Threat of suffocation and defensive reflex s15327558ijbm0202_6 activation. Psychophysiology, 48, 393–396. doi: 10.1111/j.1469- First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, 8986.2010.01076.x L. S. (1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Person- Linden, W., Ellis, A. T., & Millman, R. (2010). Deception in stress ality Disorders (SCID-II). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric reactivity and recovery research. International Journal of Press. Psychophysiology, 75, 33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.10.012 First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002). MacDonald, B., Barry, R. J., & Rushby, J. A. (2012). Single-trial event- Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Research related potentials and autonomic measures of the orienting reflex. Inter- Version (SCID-I). New York, NY: Biometrics Research, New York State national Journal of Psychophysiology, 83, 79–86. doi: 10.1016/ Psychiatric Institute. j.ijpsycho.2011.10.007 Graham, F. K., & Clifton, R. K. (1966). Heart-rate change as a component Mauss, I. B., Cook, C. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Automatic emotion of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 305–320. doi: regulation during anger provocation. Journal of Experimental Social 10.1037/h0023258 Psychology, 43, 698–711. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.07.003 Gunther Moor, B., Bos, M. G. N., Crone, E. A., & van der Molen, M. W. Mauss, I. B., Evers, C., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2006). How to bite (2014). Peer rejection cues induce cardiac slowing after transition into your tongue without blowing your top: Implicit evaluation of emotion adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 50, 947–955. doi: 10.1037/ regulation predicts affective responding to anger provocation. Person- a0033842 ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 589–602. doi: 10.1016/ Gunther Moor, B., Crone, E. A., & van der Molen, M. W. (2010). The j.jesp.2006.07.003 heartbrake of social rejection: Heart rate deceleration in response to McClelland, A. B., Jones, K. V., & Gregg, M. E. D. (2009). Psychological unexpected peer rejection. Psychological Science, 21, 1326–1333. doi: and cumulative cardiovascular effects of repeated angry rumination and 10.1177/0956797610379236 visuospatial suppression. International Journal of Psychophysiology, Hagenaars, M. A., Stins, J. F., & Roelofs, K. (2012). Aversive life events 74, 166–173. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.08.008 enhance human freezing responses. Journal of Experimental Psychol- McNiel, D. E., Eisner, J. P., & Binder, R. L. (2003). The relationship ogy: General, 141, 98–105. doi: 10.1037/a0024211 between aggressive attributional style and violence by psychiatric Harke, K. C., Schlögl, A., Anderer, P., & Pfurtscheller, G. (1999). Cardiac patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 399–403. field artifact in sleep EEG, Proceedings of the EMBEC’99 Conference doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.399 (pp. 482–483). Vienna, Austria. Miller, S. B., Dolgoy, L., Friese, M., & Sita, A. (1996). Dimensions of Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotions in hostility and cardiovascular response to interpersonal stress. Journal women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality of Psychosomatic Research, 41, 81–95. doi: 10.1016/0022- and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and 3999(96)00090-6 Social Psychology, 80, 112–124. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1 Mogg, K., Philippot, P., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Selective attention to .112 angry faces in clinical social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Harper, F. W., Austin, A. G., Cercone, J. L., & Arias, I. (2005). The role of 113, 160–165. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.160 shame, anger, and affect regulation in men’s perpetration of psychologi- Nygards, M.-E., & Sörnmo, L. (1983). Delineation of the QRS complex cal abuse in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, using the envelope of the ECG. Medical and Biological Engineering 1648–1662. doi: 10.1177/0886260505278717 and Computing, 21, 538–547. doi: 10.1007/BF02442378 Holden, C. (2009). No laughing matter. Science, 324, 699. doi: 10.1126/ Olsson, A., Carmona, S., Downey, G., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. N. (2013). science.324_699d Learning biases underlying individual differences in sensitivity to social Huber, H. P., Hauke, D., & Gramer, M. (1988). Frustrationsbedingter rejection. Emotion, 13, 616–621. doi: 10.1037/a0033150 Blutdruckanstieg und dessen Abbau durch aggressive Reaktionen Papousek, I., Ruch, W., Freudenthaler, H. H., Kogler, E., Lang, B., & [Frustration-induced rise in blood pressure and its decline through Schulter, G. (2009). Gelotophobia, emotion-related skills and responses aggressive reactions]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte to the affective states of others. Personality and Individual Differences, Psychologie, 35, 427–440. 47, 58–63. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.047 Laughter as a social rejection cue 1121

Platt, T., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2009). Gelotophobia and bullying: The Suarez, E. C., Kuhn, C. M., Schanberg, S. M., Williams, R. B., & assessment of the fear of being laughed at and its application among Zimmermann, E. A. (1998). Neuroendocrine, cardiovascular, and emo- bullying victims. Psychological Science Quarterly, 51, 135–147. tional responses of hostile men: The role of interpersonal challenge. Platt, T., Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., & Proyer, R. T. (2012). Extreme fear of Psychosomatic Medicine, 60, 78–88. being laughed at: Components of gelotophobia. Israeli Journal of Suarez, E. C., & Williams, R. B. (1989). Situational determinants of car- Humor Research, 1, 86–106. diovascular and emotional reactivity in high and low hostile men. Proyer, R. T., Ruch, W., & Chen, G.-H. (2012). Gelotophobia: Life satis- Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 404–418. faction and happiness across cultures. Humor: International Journal of Szameitat, D. P., Alter, K., Szameitat, A. J., Darwin, C. J., Wildgruber, D., Humor Research, 25, 23–40. doi: 10.1515/humor-2012-0002 Dietrich, S., & Sterr, A. (2009). Differentiation of emotions in laughter Reis, H. T., Wilson, I. M., Monestere, C., Bernstein, S., Clark, K., Seidl, E., at the behavioral level. Emotion, 9, 397–405. doi: 10.1037/a0015692 . . . Radoane, K. (1990). What is smiling is beautiful and good. Euro- Titze, M. (2009). Gelotophobia: The fear of being laughed at. Humor: pean Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 259–267. doi: 10.1002/ International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 27–48. doi: 10.1515/ ejsp.2420200307 HUMR.2009.002 Romero-Canvas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang, N. J. Twenge, J. M., Catanese, K. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Social exclu- (2010). Rejection sensitivity and the rejection-hostility link in romantic sion and the deconstructed state: Time perception, meaninglessness, relationships. Journal of Personality, 78, 119–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- lethargy, lack of emotion, and self-awareness. Journal of Personality 6494.2009.00611.x and Social Psychology, 85, 409–423. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.409 Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland Ursu, S., Kring, A. M., Gard, M. G., Minzenberg, M. J., Yoon, J. H., (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 605–616). New York, NY: Guilford Ragland, J. D., . . . & Carter, C. S. (2011). Prefrontal cortical deficits Press. and impaired cognition-emotion interactions in schizophrenia. Ameri- Ruch, W. (2009). Fearing humor? Gelotophobia: The fear of being laughed can Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 276–285. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp at. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, 1–15. doi: .2010.09081215 10.1515/HUMR.2009.001 van der Veen, F. M., van der Molen, M. W., Sahibdin, P. P., & Franken, Ruch, W., Altfreder, O., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). How do gelotophobes I. H. A. (in press). The heart-break of social rejection versus the brain interpret laughter in ambiguous situations? An experimental validation wave of social acceptance. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neurosci- of the concept. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22, ence. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst120 63–89. doi: 10.1515/HUMR.2009.004 Vila, J., Guerra, P., Munoz, A., Vico, C., Viedma del Jesus, M. I., Delgado, Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of laughter. In A. L. C, . . . Rodriguez, S. (2007). Cardiac defense: From attention to Kaszniak (Ed.), Emotion, qualia, and consciousness (pp. 426–443). action. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, 169–182. doi: Tokyo, Japan: Word Scientific. doi: 10.1142/9789812810687_0033 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.07.004 Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., Platt, T., & Proyer, R. (2014). The state-of-the-art Volchan, E., Souza, G. G., Franklin, C. M., Norte, C. E., Rocha-Rego, V., in gelotophobia research: A review and some theoretical extensions. Oliveira, J. M., . . . Figueira, I. (2011). Is there tonic immobility in Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 27, 23–45. doi: humans? Biological evidence from victims of traumatic stress. Biologi- 10.1515/humor-2013-0046 cal Psychology, 88, 13–19. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.06.002 Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008a). The fear of being laughed at: Individual Weiss, E. M. (2012). Neuroimaging and neurocognitive correlates of and group differences in gelotophobia. Humor: International Journal of aggression and violence in schizophrenia. Scientifica, 2012, 158646. Humor Research, 21, 47–67. doi: 10.1515/HUMOR.2008.002 doi: 10.6064/2012/158646 Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2008b). Who is gelotophobic? Assessment Weiss, E. M., Kohler, C. G., Nolan, K. A., Czobor, P., Volavka, J., Platt, criteria for the fear of being laughed at. Swiss Journal of Psychology, M. M., . . . Gur, R. C. (2006). The relationship between history of 67, 19–27. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185.67.1.19 violent and criminal behavior and recognition of facial expression of Ruch, W., Proyer, R. T., & Ventis, L. (2010). The relationship of teasing in emotions in men with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. childhood to the expression of gelotophobia in adults. Psychological Aggressive Behavior, 32, 187–194. doi: 10.1002/ab.20120 Test and Assessment Modeling, 52, 77–93. Weiss, E. M., Schulter, G., Freudenthaler, H. H., Hofer, E., Pichler, N., & Samson, A. C., Thibault, P., Proyer, R. T., & Ruch, W. (2010). The subjec- Papousek, I. (2012). Potential markers of aggressive behavior: The fear tive assessment of the fear of being laughed at (gelotophobia): French of other persons’ laughter and its overlaps with mental disorders. PLoS adaptation of the GELOPH<15> questionnaire. European Review of One, 7, e38088. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038088 Applied Psychology, 60, 247–253. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2010.07.002 Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An Sarid, O., Ruch, W., & Proyer, R. T. (2011). Gelotophobia in Israel: On the integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression. assessment of the fear of being laughed at. Israel Journal of Psychiatry Journal of Personality, 78, 9–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009 and Related Sciences, 48, 12–18. .00607.x Schwerdtfeger, A. (2004). Predicting autonomic reactivity to public speak- Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, ing: Don’t get fixed on self-report data! International Journal of 425–452. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641 Psychophysiology, 52, 217–224. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2003.10.008 Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism. A temporal need threat model. Advances Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Idema, C. (2011). Trait anger as a in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 276–314. mediator of difficulties with emotion regulation and female-perpetrated Williams, K. D., & Nida, S. A. (2011). Ostracism: Consequences and psychological aggression. Violence and Victims, 2, 271–282. doi: coping. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 71–75. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.271 10.1177/0963721411402480 Simpson, P. L. P. (1997). The politics of Aristotle: Translation, analysis, Wright, R. A., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2012). How motivation affects car- and notes. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. diovascular response mechanisms and applications. Washington, DC: Stefanenko, E. A., Ivanova, E.-M., Enikopolov, S.-N., Proyer, R. T., & APA Press. doi: 10.1037/13090-000 Ruch, W. (2011). Diagnosing the fear of being laughed at: Russian Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2004). How low can you go? adaptation of the gelotophobia questionnaire. Psychological Journal, Ostracism by a computer lowers belonging, control, self-esteem, and 32, 94–108 (in Russian). meaningful existence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, Stemmler, G., Aue, T., & Wacker, J. (2007). Anger and fear: Separable 560–567. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.006 effects of emotion and motivational direction on somatic and visceral responses. International Journal of Psychohysiology, 66, 141–153. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2007.03.019 (Received March 9, 2014; Accepted May 21, 2014) This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.