Courtney Stahl
Under the direction of Dr. Leslie Kirby & Dr. Craig Smith
Vanderbilt University
April 16, 2010
Overview
 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
Appraisal Theory
 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
Criticism of Structural Model
 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 of Appraisal
 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
Priming Appraisals
 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
Relevant Research
 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
Purpose & Overview
 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
Hypothesis
 Self Accountability, blame  Guilt/Shame
 Other Accountability, blame  Anger
Pilot Study 1- Songs
 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
Anger Playlist
(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
Guilt/Shame Playlist
(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
Pilot Study 2- Vignettes
 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.
Pilot Study 3- Building Task
 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
Tank Model
Participants & Design
 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
Measures
 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.”
Procedure
 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
Emotion Ratings
 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
Emotion Ratings
Appraisal Ratings
 ANOVA
 Examine participants’ assessment of accountability for
team’s performance (failure)
 Hypothesis
 Guilt/Shame condition- blame selves
 Anger condition- blame confederate
Appraisal Ratings
Impression Ratings
 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
Impression 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
Vignette Ratings
 ANOVA
 Hypothesis
 Guilt/shame condition- Rate themselves as more
accountable in negative scenarios
 Anger condition- Rate other person as more responsible
Vignette Ratings
Trends- Appraisals of Accountability
 “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.
Trends- Negative Vignettes
 Participants in Guilt/Shame condition rated
themselves as more accountable than those in Anger
condition
 Anger M= 6.222, Guilt/Shame M= 6.522
Limitations & Future Directions
 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?”
Limitations & Future Directions
 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
Acknowledgements
 Dr. Leslie Kirby
 Dr. Craig Smith
 Laura Fritzsche
 Jenn Bauman
 Smith/Kirby lab members