Under the direction of Dr. Leslie Kirby & Dr. Craig Smith
Vanderbilt University
April 16, 2010

 Goal of Research: Test the Process Model of Appraisal
 Question: Experimentally, can we selectively activate appraisals of self and other accountability through the use of selected songs playing in the background while participants work on an unrelated task?
 Background of Appraisal theory, relevant research
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion




Structural Model
 If known how a person evaluates the environment in a particular situation, can predict emotional reaction
Primary Appraisal


Importance (Relevance)
Motivational Congruence (Desirability)
Secondary Appraisal



Accountability
 Self vs. Other

Credit vs. Blame
Coping Potential
Future Expectancy

 Doesn’t explain the mechanisms by which these cognitions are generated
 Suggests appraisal is deliberate and slow
 Contradicts notion that emotions can be elicited quickly with minimum cognitive effort

 Process model developed to fill gaps
 Specifies cognitive routes by which appraisals are generated
 Associative Processing
 Priming & activation of memories
 Quickly and outside of awareness
 Reasoning
 Deliberate thinking, uses content of focal awareness

 Test process model
 Prime appraisals of motivational relevance, coping potential, and accountability to influence emotional reactions and emotion-related behaviors
 Success  Provides theoretical support for a causal role for appraisal in emotion elicitation







Julie Crider, 2004
Participants primed with appraisals of high, low, or neutral coping potential using scrambled sentence task
Given 2 math problems, 1 medium difficulty, 1 high difficulty
Participants in high and low coping conditions more successful at medium problem than those in the neutral condition
Participants in high coping potential reported reduced feelings of resignation and were more likely to solve the difficult math problem
 Can prime appraisals

 Goal: Prime appraisals of negative self and other accountability to influence emotion and emotion-related behavior
  Causal role of appraisals
 3 conditions: Anger playlist (other accountability),
Guilt/Shame playlist (self accountability), or neutral (no music)
 Timed tinker toy task with confederate (expected failure)
 Completed questionnaires
 Ex: Neutral vignettes– show movement in appraisals of accountability

 Self Accountability, blame  Guilt/Shame
 Other Accountability, blame  Anger

 Over 200 songs: Anger (other-blame), Guilt/Shame
(self-blame), Gratitude (other-credit), Pride (selfcredit), General Positive, General Negative
 30 second clips-- Narrowed down to top 20 for each song
 Top 20 embedded into survey
 Appraisal ratings by 62 Vanderbilt Undergraduates
 Top 10 on final song list, focused on accountability ratings

(Other accountability, blame)
 “Because of You” – Kelly Clarkson
 “Look What You’ve Done” – Jet
 “You Give Love a Bad Name” – Bon Jovi
 “You Oughta Know” – Alanis Morisette
 “Father of Mine” – Everclear
 “I’ve Come to Expect it from you” – George Strait
 “Before He Cheats” – Carrie Underwood
 “Complicated” – Avril Lavigne
 “Apologize” – Timbaland
 “Torn” – Natalie Imbruglia

(Self accountability, blame)
 “Shame” – Avett Brothers
 “Sorry” – Buckcherry
 “Hard to Say I’m Sorry” – Chicago
 “Cold” – Crossfade
 “Unfaithful” – Rihanna
 “Confessions Pt. II” – Usher
 “Last Name” – Carrie Underwood
 “Nobody’s Fault But My Own” – Beck
 “Blame it on me” – Akon
 “Whatever It Takes” – Lifehouse

 Created 32 neutral vignettes, positive and negative sides of 16 situations
 119 Vanderbilt Undergraduates rated appraisals of self, other, and chance accountability
 Selected top 6 most neutral positive and negative vignettes
 Negative Example:
 You and your teammate are in a rowing race and get last place.

 Needed to determine amount of time for task
 4 pairs of male friends, Vanderbilt undergraduates
 Instructed to complete tinker toy model as fast as possible
 Average time: 6 minutes, 5 seconds
  Give participants 5 minutes in study

 Participants: 45 Vanderbilt Undergraduates (33 female,
12 male)
 3 conditions: Anger (other accountability, 11 female, 4 male), Guilt/shame (self accountability, 12 female, 3 male), Neutral (no music, 10 female, 5 male)
 Paired with a lab confederate
 Confederate is neutral





Emotion Ratings
 “Mad, angry, irate”
Appraisal Ratings
 “To what extent do you think that YOU are responsible for your team's performance?”
Impression Ratings


Ex: Rude, friendly, attractive
Positive, negative, and attractive scales for self and partner
Vignette Ratings
 12 situations with neutral accountability


Standard appraisal questions
Ex: “I am responsible for what’s going on.”

 Played music prior to participants’ arrival
 Introduction/Cover story
 Completed emotion ratings for baseline measure
 5 minute building task (failed)
 Completed emotion ratings, appraisal ratings, impression ratings, and vignette ratings
 Debriefed and dismissed

 ANCOVA, pre-task emotion ratings as covariate
 Show change in emotion
 Hypothesis: Elevated ratings of guilt and shame for participants in the self accountability condition and elevated ratings of anger for those in the other accountability condition

 ANOVA
 Examine participants’ assessment of accountability for team’s performance (failure)
 Hypothesis
 Guilt/Shame condition- blame selves
 Anger condition- blame confederate

 Positive impressions scale, negative impressions scale,
& perceived attractiveness scale
 ANOVA
 Hypothesis
 Guilt/shame condition- Rate partner more positively than self
 Anger condition- More positive self ratings and lower other ratings

**Positive Impression Scale (self)- Participants in the neutral condition felt more positively about themselves (M=7.023) than participants in the guilt/shame condition (M=6.723) who were blaming themselves for their failure

 ANOVA
 Hypothesis
 Guilt/shame condition- Rate themselves as more accountable in negative scenarios
 Anger condition- Rate other person as more responsible

 “To what extent do you think that YOU are responsible for your team's performance?”
 Mean for neutral higher than anger, lower than guilt/shame, as expected


Anger M=5.530, Guilt/Shame M=6.200, Neutral
M=5.600
 Participants in the guilt/shame condition blamed themselves more for the failure than those in the anger condition.

 Participants in Guilt/Shame condition rated themselves as more accountable than those in Anger condition
 Anger M= 6.222, Guilt/Shame M= 6.522

 Sample Size
 Increase sample size to increase power
 Not adequate exposure to music
 Filler task
 Not motivationally relevant for participants
 Increase relevance, more incentive
 Misinterpretation of question
 “Who do you think is the MOST responsible for your team’s performance?”

 Interpersonal task overwhelmed priming
 Griner & Smith, 2000


Anger manipulation caused absence of significant effects
 Need to test just music as primer
 Positive appraisals of self and other accountability
 Pride, Gratitude
 Finish model
 Other methods to prime accountability

 Dr. Leslie Kirby
 Dr. Craig Smith
 Laura Fritzsche
 Jenn Bauman
 Smith/Kirby lab members