Could Two Negative Emotions Be a Positive? the Effects of Anger and Anxiety in Enemyship
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
YJESP-03459; No. of pages: 14; 4C: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (2016) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp Could two negative emotions be a positive? The effects of anger and anxiety in enemyship Daphna Motro a,⁎, Daniel Sullivan b a University of Arizona, Eller College of Management, McClelland Hall, 405G, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States b University of Arizona, Department of Psychology, Psychology Building, 519, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States HIGHLIGHTS • Demonstrates critical role of anger in enemyship using appraisal theory • Feeling angry at an enemy after feeling anxiety has positive effects on motivation. • This effect is mediated by perceptions of control and certainty. • Found support for moderated mediation model across three studies • Implications for approach-avoidance literature article info abstract Article history: Enemyship is an important but understudied interpersonal phenomenon. Prior research on this topic has focused on Received 22 February 2016 enemyship's cognitive, control-maintenance function following a threat. The present studies advance theory and re- Revised 23 July 2016 search by showing the role of emotion, particularly anger, in this process. Using appraisal theory as a framework, we Accepted 23 July 2016 draw on recent research into approach and avoidance motivational dynamics during threat. We propose an interac- Available online xxxx tion between anxiety-inducing threat and enemy-directed anger on perceptions of control and certainty, and moti- vation. More specifically, we expect that when an anxiety-inducing threat is present, perceptions of control and Keywords: fi Control threats certainty will be signi cantly higher when enemy-directed anger is also present than when it is not. Additionally, Enemyship we sought to demonstrate the consequences of these processes for motivation. Perhaps counterintuitively, we pro- Anger pose that individuals who experience anger at an enemy following an anxiety-inducing control threat will experi- Anxiety ence a boost in motivation, an effect mediated by perceptions of control and certainty. We find support for our Motivation moderated mediation model across three studies with undergraduate and working adults (Total N = 673). Approach-avoidance © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction with a co-worker (e.g., an enemy competing with the self for a promo- tion; Wiseman & Duck, 1995). While there is a long tradition and contemporary literature connect- Given the prominence and importance of interpersonal enemyship, ed with the study of intergroup enmity in social psychology (e.g., some researchers have recently examined its psychological function. Halperin & Sharvit, 2015), interpersonal enemyship is a comparatively This research has focused on the social cognitive function of enemyship, understudied topic. We define enemyship as the perception that another and indicates that individuals may perceive enemyship partly for the person or group is using influence and power to undermine one's goals counterintuitive purpose of maintaining perceived individual control and well-being. Despite a lack of empirical attention, enemyship is a and certainty1 after an experienced threat. Certainly perceived common phenomenon both worldwide (Adams, 2005; Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, & Park, 1997) and in North American settings (Holt, 1 Control and certainty – though conceptually distinct – are closely related in phenom- 1989). Many people in the United States report an enemy relationship enological experience. Certainty is the degree to which future events seem predictable and comprehensible, while control is the degree to which events seem to be brought about by individual or situational agency (Lerner & Keltner, 2000, 2001). Classic theoretical per- spectives in social science converge with recent research to suggest that perceived order ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Management and Organizations, University in the environment (certainty) is the psychological basis for perceptions of personal con- of Arizona, McClelland Hall 405G, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States. trol (Kay, Laurin, Fitzsimons, & Landau, 2014; Kay et al., 2015). Hence, in any given context, E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Motro), [email protected] perceptions of certainty (e.g., regarding how to navigate the environment, what kind of (D. Sullivan). tasks to perform) are likely to be strongly linked with perceptions of personal control. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.007 0022-1031/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: Motro, D., & Sullivan, D., Could two negative emotions be a positive? The effects of anger and anxiety in enemyship, Jour- nal of Experimental Social Psychology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.07.007 2 D. Motro, D. Sullivan / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology xxx (2016) xxx–xxx enemyship is threatening in and of itself; but it can be seen as the lesser certainty and high individual control (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Smith of two evils when the individual is reminded of more ambiguous and & Ellsworth, 1985). Being in a state of uncertainty is fundamentally un- unpredictable hazards (e.g., economic uncertainty; disease; accidents). comfortable and potentially dangerous (Higgins, 2011). Thus, when Threats to personal control and certainty often take the form of such re- confronted with anxiety and uncertainty, individuals search for clear minders, which suggest that the environment is disordered and threat goals and contingencies to guide behavior and increase control and cer- randomly distributed (Becker, 1969). The fact that an enemy can be tainty (Fennis & Wiebenga, 2015; Sherif & Harvey, 1952), and they invoke clearly identified as a focal, anthropomorphic source of threat should in- a variety of direct and indirect strategies to achieve this aim (Higgins, crease a sense of personal control in the wake of uncertainty-related 2011; Kay, Sullivan, & Landau, 2015). We propose that one such tactic anxiety. However unpleasant, a human enemy can at least be under- would be to experience anger when given the opportunity. With anger, stood and predicted (Becker, 1969; Hoffman, 1983). it is clear who or what caused the event (perhaps an enemy) and how Prior studies have provided support for this social cognitive account it has or how it will affect the individual (Gibson & Callister, 2010). of enemyship (Rothschild, Landau, Sullivan, & Keefer, 2012; Sullivan, Thus, we hypothesize that the experience of anger towards an enemy Landau, & Rothschild, 2010). However, no research has yet examined can serve a palliative function. the role of emotion in enemyship. Specifically, we propose that a critical, How might anger play a role in the established process through previously overlooked aspect of control maintenance in enemyship is which contemplating an enemy after threat increases perceived control the emotional experience of anger. Indeed, anger is often conceptual- and certainty? A broad emerging consensus suggests that defensive re- ized as an emotion directed at perceived enemies (Averill, 1982). Be- sponses to anxiety-provoking threats often follow an avoidance-ap- yond ignoring the role of emotion, prior studies have also not yet proach cognitive-motivational sequence (Greenaway et al., 2015; considered the implications of enemyship for motivation. Using ap- Jonas et al., 2014). That is, individuals who have experienced a threat praisal theory, the present research addresses these gaps and thereby to their control or certainty initially feel anxiety and are directed toward advances the burgeoning literature on enemyship. an avoidance orientation – they are vigilant in scanning their environ- More broadly, our studies make a critical contribution to the literature ment for threat and seek to withdraw from the environment or threat- on threat-defense processes in social psychology (Jonas et al., 2014). A ening targets if possible. In an ongoing temporal sequence, individuals growing consensus in this literature is that individuals initially respond in this state then typically attempt to increase control and certainty by to threats with avoidance motivation, but then compensatorily shift to ap- seeking some means of psychological defense, which often takes the proach motivation after an opportunity to defend against the threat. form of a symbol or target (e.g., an enemy). If such a potential defense However, the vast majority of studies supporting this model rely on mechanism can be identified, individuals then compensatorily shift to main effect or correlational mediational designs (Greenaway et al., an approach motivation – indeed, they often experience a surge in mo- 2015; Jonas et al., 2014). The present studies adopt an interactional ap- tivation to compensate for the threat (Jonas et al., 2014). proach better suited to testing this model by first manipulating avoid- We believe that experiencing anger at an identified enemy is the cru- ance-oriented emotion (anxiety) and subsequently manipulating the cial means through which individuals increase perceived control and cer- opportunity for approach-oriented emotion (anger), in order to test the tainty via enemyship. In contrast to anxiety, anger is referred to explicitly combinatorial impact of threat and defense on control, certainty, and as an “approach related affect” (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009, p. 183), motivation.