Social Cuing of Guilt by Anger and of Shame by Disgust

Giner‐Sorolla, Roger; Espinosa, Pablo

doi:10.1177/0956797610392925

Cited by 58 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We focused on the emotions of anger and disgust because of their prominent role in communication, association with moral judgment, and distinctive relationship to moral outcomes (29)(30)(31). We also included sadness, a low-arousal emotion, to compare its impact to the higharousal emotions of anger and disgust.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks

Brady

Wills

Jost

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

806

605

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political debate concerning moralized issues is increasingly common in online social networks. However, moral psychology has yet to incorporate the study of social networks to investigate processes by which some moral ideas spread more rapidly or broadly than others. Here, we show that the expression of moral emotion is key for the spread of moral and political ideas in online social networks, a process we call "moral contagion." Using a large sample of social media communications about three polarizing moral/political issues (n = 563,312), we observed that the presence of moral-emotional words in messages increased their diffusion by a factor of 20% for each additional word. Furthermore, we found that moral contagion was bounded by group membership; moral-emotional language increased diffusion more strongly within liberal and conservative networks, and less between them. Our results highlight the importance of emotion in the social transmission of moral ideas and also demonstrate the utility of social network methods for studying morality. These findings offer insights into how people are exposed to moral and political ideas through social networks, thus expanding models of social influence and group polarization as people become increasingly immersed in social media networks.O ur sense of right and wrong shapes our daily interactions in a variety of domains such as political participation, consumer choices, and close relationships. What factors inform our intuitions about morality? Influential theories in psychology maintain that our moral sense is shaped by the social world (1), insofar as decades of research demonstrate that social communities influence moral development in children (2) and account for cross-cultural variation in moral beliefs (3). Furthermore, social information serves as input for cognitive and emotional processes in moral judgment and decision-making (4).Despite a broad consensus that morality is influenced by attitudes and norms transmitted by our social world, remarkably little work has examined how social networks transmit moral attitudes and norms. Most existing research takes a dyadic perspective to study the social transmission of morality; typically, one person (such as a child) is exposed to another's ideas (e.g., parent) through behavior or communication (1, 2). In society, the transmission of morality goes well beyond the dyad. Our moods, thoughts, and actions are shaped by the entire network of individuals with whom we share direct and indirect relationships (5). Thus, we often develop similar ideas and intuitions as others because we are socially connected to them (6). This phenomenon is often deemed social "contagion" because it mimics the spread of disease. We use a social contagion perspective to illuminate how morally tinged messages about political issues are transmitted through social networks.Research on the emotional underpinnings of morality provides a theoretical framework to understand the processes that may drive social contagion in the domain of morality. Emotions...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks

Brady

Wills

Jost

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

806

605

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Emotional responses to the perception of being dehumanized have been theoretically aligned with animalistic dehumanization and involve feelings of shame and guilt (Haslam, 2006) due to the perception that one is the object of contempt and disgust (see also Giner-Sorolla & Espinosa, 2011). These kinds of self-conscious emotional responses would also be expected based on the notion that people feel responsible for allowing themselves to be treated in ways that lower their status or relative outcomes (Vohs et al, 2007).…”

Section: Experiencing Dehumanizationmentioning

confidence: 95%

Experiencing Dehumanization: Cognitive and Emotional Effects of Everyday Dehumanization

Bastian

Haslam

2011

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

215

226

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into dehumanization has focused on its perpetrators and neglected the experience of its targets. Across two studies we present evidence that people experience interactions as dehumanizing when other people's behavior undermines basic elements of personhood, such as identity and status. These experiences have cognitive and emotional consequences. Two forms of experienced dehumanization were apparent. In one, a failure to recognize the target's equal status is associated with aversive self-awareness and feelings of shame and guilt. In the other, a failure to recognize the target's basic existence as a person is associated with cognitive deconstructive states and feelings of sadness and anger.

show abstract

“…Other research has examined how more specific emotions, like disgust (Hutcherson & Gross, 2011;Ugazio, Lamm, & Singer, 2011;Wheatley & Haidt, 2005), guilt (Finger, Marsh, Kamel, Mitchell, & Blair, 2006;Takahashi et al, 2004), and contempt (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999), can modify our moral judgments (Eisenberg, 2000;Pizarro & Salovey, 2002;Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). For instance, guilt -a negative evaluation of a behavior that violates moral rules or principles -can motivate people to make amends when they have done something wrong (Chang, Smith, Dufwenberg, & Sanfey, 2011;Giner-Sorolla & Espinosa, 2011). Each of these distinct moral emotions can promote prosocial behavior.…”

Section: How Do We Arrive At Our Moral Judgments? Emotions and The Romentioning

confidence: 99%