Research on individual differences in affective reactivity should use weak,ambiguous situations rather than the strong situations used in typical affect induction procedures

Abstract

Neuroticism is consistently linked to lower well-being, particularly through heightened negative affect. Yet the specific affective processes underlying this association remain unclear. Affective reactivity has been proposed as one candidate mechanism, but laboratory evidence using affect induction procedures has been mixed. We suggest this inconsistency may stem from the design of these procedures, which often minimize individual differences to maximize experimental effects. Such an approach may inadvertently obscure the role of neuroticism in shaping affective responses. Building on situational strength theory, we examined whether neuroticism relates to affective reactivity differently in strong versus weak situations. Strong situations, characterized by clear demands and expectations, tend to constrain affective responses and reduce variability across individuals. Weak situations, by contrast, provide less structure, leaving room for subjective interpretation and amplifying personality-linked differences. We tested this idea across six laboratory experiments (N = 1552). Results showed that neuroticism was unrelated to affective reactivity in strong situations but strongly associated with reactivity in weak situations. These findings highlight negative event appraisals as a central mechanism linking neuroticism to affective responses. More broadly, they underscore the importance of considering situational strength when studying affective reactivity—an area that may require approaches beyond standard affect induction procedures.

Plain Language Summary

People differ in how strongly they react to stressful or negative events. One important trait is neuroticism, which describes how prone someone is to worrying, feeling tense, or experiencing negative emotions. Many lab studies have tried to test whether people higher in neuroticism react more strongly to negative events, but the results have been mixed. In this project, we asked whether the type of situation matters. Most lab studies use very “strong” situations, for example, upsetting images or texts that almost everyone finds clearly negative. These situations push people to respond in the same way, which can leave little room for personality differences to show up. We reasoned that neuroticism might matter more in “weak” situations, that is, in more ambiguous situations where it is not obvious how bad or threatening something is, and people must interpret the situation for themselves. Across five lab studies, we compared people’s emotional reactions to strong versus weak situations. Strong situations included typical affect induction procedures using negative pictures or texts. Weak situations included more ambiguous scenarios, such as being told there might be a problem with one’s questionnaire. We found that neuroticism barely predicted emotional reactions in strong situations but reliably predicted stronger negative reactions in weak, ambiguous situations. In a sixth study using everyday vignettes, people higher in neuroticism also tended to view situations more negatively. Together, these findings suggest that emotional reactivity related to neuroticism shows up most clearly when situations are unclear or open to interpretation, rather than in obviously negative, highly scripted lab tasks. Future research and interventions may therefore need to focus more on how people high in neuroticism interpret and respond to everyday, ambiguous situations.