Cohen, L., Towbes, L., & Flocco, R. (1988). Effects of induced mood on self-reported life events and perceived and received social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 669-674.
Consistently, research has found that participants with depressed affect tend to recall negative life memories better than participants with positive affect. This finding is concurrent in both experimentally induced moods and clinical depression. This finding suggests a report bias for self-report life event questionnaires. This would pose a problem for research that depended on subjective self-reports.
In past research, only two other studies addressed the response bias on life event questionnaires. Though neither study found any support for the response bias, weaknesses in the methodological aspect of the studies suggest problems in interpretation. Such problems include that the self-report test (LES) had only ten questions that related to college students (the participants) and the LES was given on two occasions over the course of six weeks, and perhaps the participants remembered their responses and just repeated them.
With that said, the intention of the study currently in discussion was to systematically replicate the study done by Siegal et al. (1979), but instead using the subjective scored test of life-events (CSLES) that was specifically designed for college students. Also different from Siegal’s previous study was that the measure was administered post-manipulation only, it assessed the events of the last six months rather than twelve, and it involved a relatively large sample.
The study also measured the amount of perceived and received social support. The participants completed this after the mood manipulation.
Methods
Participants.
Subjects were 134 college undergrads, of which were 61 men and 73 women who were satisfying a requirement for an intro psych class. The study tested same-sex groups of 5-10. Each group was randomly assigned to one of three conditions: depressed mood, neutral mood, or elated mood.
Procedure.
Mood was manipulated using the Velten (1968) statements. 45 of the original 60 statements were put on an overhead with a female narrator. The students were told to NOT read the statements aloud. After all the statements were put on the overhead, the participants then completed four questionnaires concerning mood, life events, and social support. After the end of the experiment participants in the depressed mood group saw twenty of the statements from the elated mood group and then were dismissed when the researcher felt that all lingering sadness had been relieved.
Measures. The participants filled out the following tests: CSLES, the inventory of socially supportive behaviors (ISSB), the interpersonal supportive evaluation list (ISEL) and the MAACL (manipulation check).
The CSLES includes 111 life events for the last six months, about which the participants were to report the events impact from extremely negative to extremely positive. The obtained scores include the number of positive, negative and neutral events, and the mean impact scores of the positive and negative events.
The ISSB is a 40-item scale that measures social support received during that past month. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale, and the total score is obtained by summing the individual question ratings.
The ISEL measures perceived social support. It includes 48 true or false questions. In addition to a total score, the test also creates four subscales that represent the perceived availability of a) material aid b) someone to talk to about problems c) people to do things with and d) a positive evaluation one self with others.
Results
MAACL: The only significant results found for the manipulation check (MAACL) was a main effect for mood, documenting the effectiveness of the mood manipulation. On the MAACL depression score, it was found that those in the depressed group (M=2.33 adjectives) received a higher score that the elated group (M=1.24) and the neutral condition (M=1.33). The MAACL positive affect score revealed a higher score for the elated group (M=9.91 adjectives) than both the neutral condition (M=6.74) and the depressed condition (M=5.76).
CSLES: It was found that there was a significant main effect for mood on the number of life events, F2, 128=5.96,p<.01. Subjects in the elated condition reported fewer negative events (M=5.65) than those in the depressed condition (M=8.35) and the neutral condition (M=7.48), with no significant findings between the depressed and neutral conditions. No significant effects found with number of positive events.
It was also found that there was a significant difference between men and
women, with women reporting more severe (negative) ratings (M=-1.96) than male
participants (M=-1.80). Women also gave significantly more positive ratings
than men
(M=2.31 vs. 2.11). There was also a significant main effect for neutral events,
with men scoring higher than women (m=2.34 vs. 1.28).
SOCIAL SUPPORT: There wasn’t a significant difference found for received support (ISSB) in relation to mood and sex. However, a significant main effect was found in relation to perceived support (ISEL), in which participants in the depressed group (M=35.29) scored lower than the participants in the neutral group (M=38.70) and the elated group (M=39.67). On each subscale, the depressed group scored lower than the neutral and elated groups.
Discussion
Because no significant difference was found between the depressed and neutral groups in respect to negative event-reporting, it is suggested that positive affect served to suppress the participants’ scores for self-evaluated negative events. The mood manipulation didn’t affect the severity rating of negative events, but rather the number of negative events reported. This finding would support the notion that retrospective life-reporting is vulnerable to mood-related response bias.
Another theory discussed is the possibility that perhaps mood affects life event memory rather that event evaluation. Meaning, depressed mood makes recalling negative life events easier that a positive affect would.
No significant differences were found between groups in relation to received support. It is unclear as to why this occurred, but one would hypothesize that this data is based on actual fact that isn’t really vulnerable to interpretation. However, a significant difference was found between groups in respect to perceived support, with the depressed group reporting less support than the neutral and elated group. The depressed group supposedly under-reported social support. More research is needed to further evaluate why this phenomenon occurred.
This study does have its limitations. Firstly, it is unknown how well these findings can be generalized to other populations, regardless of age, class, and race. Also, it is discussed that the average college student might not normally experience the negative and positive extremes created in this study. And finally, future research must address the notion that perhaps the average college student hasn’t had that many extremely negative or extremely positive life events yet. Further research is needed.
Summarized by Sarah Fish
February 25, 2003
Chapman, A. J. (1973). Funniness of jokes, Canned laughter and recall
performance. Sociometry, 36, 569-578.
Research Questions (hypotheses):
1. Canned laughter has facilitative effects on mirth, humor-ratings,
and joke recall.
2. Are mirth and humor-ratings equivalent indicators of humor appreciation?
3. Is there a relationship between amounts of mirth elicited and recall of jokes?
4. Do improvements in recall performance result if the increase in overt mirth
is not associated with higher funniness ratings?
Method
Subjects: 30 men and 30 women university students between the ages of 18-21.
Materials: 5 tape recorded jokes with canned laughter (CL) and 5 jokes without.
Procedure: Subjects first completed an exercise that was designed to give them
practice using rating scales. The subjects then heard and rated the five jokes,
while the experimenter secretly monitored their mirth reactions using a 4-point
scale. Fourteen days later the subjects were asked to return. They were asked
to recall as many jokes as they could from the previous session. Subjects were
then debriefed about the nature of the study.
Results
Subjects in the canned laughter condition (CL):
1. Elicited more mirth reactions.
2. Did not rate jokes significantly higher.
3. Showed a non-significant tendency to recall more jokes than the other condition.
Mirth scores and humor-ratings were significantly correlated in both conditions. Recalled jokes were significantly associated with above average mirth and above average humor ratings.
Discussion
The results suggest that canned laughter is a stimulus for mirth.
For us, this study provides further evidence that mirth reactions and joke-ratings are not identical, although they are highly correlated. What is interesting is that both high mirth scores (presumably emotional reactions) and high joke-ratings (a presumably cognitive response) both increase joke recall. It would appear that both types of reactions are instrumental in the formation and retrieval of jokes in memory.
On a more practical side, this study lends support to our mirth rating scale,
and also shows that testing in groups probably has unforeseen, and unidentified
influences on our data.
Summarized by Kevan Donaghy
February 17, 2003
Heimpel, S.A., Wood, J.V., Marshall, M.A., Brown, J.D. (2002). Do People With Low Self-Esteem Really Want to Feel Better? Self-Esteem Differences in Motivation to Repair Negative Moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 128-147.
The present study investigated why those with low self-esteem are less likely than those with high self-esteem to use effective coping strategies to overcome negative experiences. Previous research has suggested that people with high self-esteem have an easier time bringing positive ideas to them which may make them more capable of possessing effective coping strategies than those with low self-esteem (e.g. Dodgson & Wood, 1998). Additionally, past research has suggested that those who are both high and low in self-esteem have the same motivational goals to improve their mood. Heimpel, et al hypothesize that those with low self-esteem are in fact less likely to be motivated to improve a negative mood than people with low self-esteem. The present study also examined the proposal that negative emotions would interfere with LSE people’s self-regulation of moods. Past research has shown that negative emotions may disrupt self-regulation because they can impair motivation and cognitive capacity (e.g. Aspinwall, 1998; Carver & Scheier, 1990).
Additional empirical evidence supports these findings. It has been supported that HSE people categorize and label their mood states more accurately than LSE people (Swinkels & Guliano, 1995) and that self esteem has been linked with the Negative Mood Regulation, which deals with expectancies for coping with a negative mood (Smith & Petty, 1995). The present study researched responses to an actual failure in participants’ lives and assessed their goals through self report. It was hypothesized that after a failure, fewer LSE than HSE participants would express a goal that might improve their mood. It was also hypothesized that those who possessed a goal to regulate their moods would report an improvement in mood over those without such a goal the following day.
Method
Pretest
One month previous to the beginning of the study, introductory psychology students at the University of Waterloo in Canada received extra credit for completing a questionnaire which included Flemming and Courtney’s (1984) Self-Rating Scale, which has been used as a measure of self-esteem and has a test-retest reliability of .82. Following the questionnaire, those whose scores fell within the top and bottom thirds were recruited for participation.
Participants
116 participants (56 men and 60 women), 62 who had LSE and 54 who had HSE according to the Self-Rating scale joined the study. Fifty-nine participants (31 LSE, 28 HSE) were randomly assigned to the success condition and 57 participants (31 LSE and 26 HSE) were randomly assigned to the failure conditions.
Apparatus and Materials
Participants completed the 20 adjectives on the PANAS scale to describe how they had been feeling over the past week. Those in the success condition were told that a success involved, “an experience or event that is a relatively positive one to you, that makes you feel good in some way about yourself, and that you have some kind of emotional reaction to.” The failure condition group were given the definition of failure as, “an experience or even that is a relatively negative to you, that makes you feel bad in some way about yourself, and that you have some kind of emotional reaction to.” Participants were each given a diary and asked to make an entry as soon as they could after the first occurrence of success or failure.
Procedure
Participants recorded the date and time of the event, described it in a brief paragraph and then rated the event’s desirability on an 8-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely desirable) to 8 (extremely undesirable). They also completed the PANAS and additional questions were asked regarding what they were going to do when they finished completing the form and were asked to give the reasons behind the responses to their questions. They were also asked to verify whether they actually did what they said they were going to do following the event. Independent coders then read the entries to look for mood improvement goals among the participants. Mood improvement was assumed if the participant made reference to feeling better, cheering up, dealing with the negative mood, etc.
Results
As expected, failure participants perceived their events to be less desirable (M= 6.93) than the success participants (M= 1.64) and LSE participants rated their events as less desirable (M= 4.44) than the HSE participants (M= 4.06). Additionally, the average severity rating for failure events was 3.02 and there were no significant effects. In the LSE participants, men appeared to have a greater causal role for both successes and failures than did women, and among the HSE participants men had more successes than women. Participants had more positive moods after success than failure and more negative moods after failure, as predicted.
Discussion
Overall, an interest in improving mood was less prevalent among LSE participants than HSE participants. Self esteem was a significant predictor of problem solving motivation and HSE participants were more likely to express a goal to problem solve following failure than LSE participants.
Summarized by Brooke Gardner
February 24, 2003
Graziano, W.G.; Bryant, W.H.M. (1998). Self-monitoring and the self-attribution of positive emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 250-261.
High self-monitors are people who “have learned that their affective experiences and expressions are somehow socially inappropriate.” As a result, they are more likely to look for situational cues to tell them how to behave under given circumstances, and discount how they would actually like to behave.
Method
Graziano and Bryant had high and low self-monitoring individuals read comic monologues either accompanied or unaccompanied by a laugh track.
In the Increased Mirth Condition, they were told that the laugh track made them laugh more than they would have otherwise.
In the Decreased Mirth Condition, they were told that the laugh track made them laugh less than they would have otherwise.
Results and Discussion
Graziano and Bryant found that, in the Increased Mirth Condition, high self-monitors found the jokes paired with the laugh track funnier than low self-monitors did anyway – G. and B. concluded that, even though the high self-monitors were told that they were laughing because of the laugh track and not because the jokes were funny, they still inferred their attitudes (liking the jokes) from their behaviors (laughing at the jokes), which were highly influenced by situational cues (the laugh track).
In the Decreased Mirth Condition, high self-monitors found the jokes not paired with the laugh track to be funnier than the low self-monitors did.
Over both conditions, high self-monitors liked the monologues paired with a laugh track more than the low self-monitors did; self-monitoring did not predict anything about the jokes without the laugh track.
Summarized by Laura Gildner
February 28, 2003
Young, R. D., Frye, M. (1966). Some Are Laughing; Some Are Not--Why? Psychological Reports, 18, 747-754.
In their article, ":Some are laughing, some are not-why?" Young and Frye looked at manipulations of the social environment and their effect on humor appreciation in college males. In this experiment there were two studies that I felt were pertinent to our study.
In the second study, forty male subjects were listened to a tape of jokes. The subjects listened to these jokes individually and in a group. The results of this study indicated that there was more overt laughter in the group condition as compared to the individual condition. Joke ratings stayed relatively constant.
In the third study a female confederate was used to see how she affected group
responses to jokes. There were three conditions: laugh condition-the confederate
laughed at all 10 sex jokes and 10 random others. Neutral condition-confederate
made no overt response to sex jokes and laughed at 20 of the others. Embarrassed
condition-confederate made embarrassed reactions to sex jokes but laughed at
20 others. The results: for the laugh condition, both sex jokes ratings and
the jokes in general were higher in ratings than the condition w/o the confederate.
The neutral condition was basically the same in both confederate and non-confed
settings. Finally, in the embarrassed condition, there was almost a complete
suppression of overt
laughter after the first joke. As well, joke ratings dropped.
Overt laughter in 3rd study: Only 2 out of 64 subjects laughed at 5 jokes in the embarrassing condition vs. all the subjects laughing and/or making comments about 60% of jokes in the laughter condition.
Summarized by Meghan Soule
March 4, 2003
This page is a feature of the Humor Research Team at Ithaca College
Maintained by Barney Beins
Dept. of Psychology
Ithaca College
Ithaca, NY 14850
Last updated: March 18, 2003