Differential effects of abstract and concrete processing on the reactivity of basic and self-conscious emotions

ABSTRACT

The present research examines the influence of different processing modes (abstract vs. concrete) on the intensity of negative basic emotions (anger, fear) and self-conscious emotions (guilt, shame). We suggest that the cognitive appraisals underlying self-conscious emotions are relatively more abstract and less concrete than the appraisals underlying basic emotions. Consequently, we predicted that abstract processing would increase the intensity of self-conscious emotions and decrease the intensity of basic emotions, whereas concrete processing would increase the intensity of basic emotions and decrease the intensity of self-conscious emotions. We tested this prediction in four experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, concrete processing led to more intense anger than abstract processing, and abstract processing led to more intense guilt than concrete processing. In Experiment 3a, concrete processing increased the intensity of fear, and in Experiment 3b, concrete processing decreased the intensity of shame. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the emotion’s underlying appraisals when reflecting on one’s emotional experience.

KEYWORDS:

• Abstract processing
• concrete processing
• self-conscious emotions
• basic emotions

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 All experiments were approved by the Ben-Gurion University Ethics Committee. In all experiments, we decided on the sample size prior to data collection. All measures, manipulations, and exclusions in the study are disclosed. For access to the dataset, visit https://osf.io/6umbx/.

2 To avoid dividing by zero, we conducted linear transformation on the abstractness and concreteness ratings by adding one point to each rating (i.e., changing the scale from 0–3 to 1–4).

3 An analysis with abstractness and concreteness scores rather than the proportion index is reported in the supplemental materials.

4 All experiments followed this criterion. The number of excluded participants from each experiment was 16 (Experiment 1), 5 (Experiment 2), 5 (Experiment 3a), and 17 (Experiment 3b).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant #696-15 to Tal Eyal.