Evaluations of objects change as a function of our experience with them. We suggest that this also applies to the evaluation of emotions. In three studies, we show that the evaluation of anger changes as a function of direct experience with anger. We found that the experience of anger in a context in which it could be beneficial (i.e., an aggressive computer game) led people to perceive anger as more useful (Study 1). Moreover, people came to evaluate anger less negatively after experiencing anger in a context in which it could be beneficial. These changes did not result from the mere experience of anger or from exposure to an aggressive context (Study 2). Rather, the more anger improved their performance, the less negatively participants came to evaluate anger (Study 3). These findings suggest that how bad anger seems may depend on our direct experience with it.
AndersonN. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171.
2.
CheungR. M.NoelS.HardinC. D. (2011). Adopting the system-justifying attitudes of others: Effects of trivial interpersonal connections in the context of social inclusion and exclusion. Social Cognition, 29, 255–269.
3.
CunninghamW. A.ZelazoP. D. (2007). Attitudes and evaluations: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 97–104.
4.
DuerdenM. D.WittP. A. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 379–392.
5.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25, 582–602.
6.
EidM.DienerE. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 869–885.
7.
EkmanP. (1999). Basic emotions. In DalgleishT.PowerM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 45–60). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
8.
FazioR. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637.
9.
FazioR. H.ChenJ.McDonelE. C.ShermanS. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitudebehavior consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 339–357.
10.
FazioR. H.OlsonM. A. (2003). Attitudes: Foundations, functions, and consequences. In HoggM. A.CooperJ. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 139–160). London, England: Sage.
11.
FazioR. H.ZannaM. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408.
12.
FergusonM. J. (2007). On the automatic evaluation of end-states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 596–611.
13.
FiedlerK.MessnerC.BluemkeM. (2006). Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 74–147.
14.
FordB. Q.TamirM. (2014). Preferring familiar emotions: As you want (and like) it?Cognition and Emotion, 28, 311–324.
15.
FrijdaN. H. (1986). The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2011). The associative-propositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 59–127.
17.
GreenwaldA. GNosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
18.
Harmon-JonesE. (2004). On the relationship of frontal brain activity and anger: Examining the role of attitude toward anger. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 337–361.
19.
Harmon JonesE.Harmon JonesC.AmodioD. M.GableP. A. (2011). Attitudes toward emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1332–1350.
20.
Murphy-RussellS.DieA. H.WalkerJ. L. (1986). Changing attitudes toward the elderly: The impact of three models of attitude change. Educational Gerontology, 12, 241–251.
21.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2001). Implicit attitude formation through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 12, 413–417.
22.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2004). Reducing the influence of extrapersonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: personalizing the IAT. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86, 653–667.
23.
ReganD. T.FazioR. H. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 38–45.
24.
RussellJ. A. (2009). Emotion, core affect, and psychological construction. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1259–1283.
25.
SolomonR. C.StoneL. D. (2002). On ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ emotions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 417–435.
26.
SuttonR. I. (1991). Maintaining norms about expressed emotions: The case of bill collectors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 245–268.
27.
TamirM. (2009). What do people want to feel and why? Pleasure and utility in emotion regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 101–105.
28.
TamirM.BigmanY. E.RhodesE.SalernoJ.SchreierJ. (2015). An expectancy-value model of emotion regulation: Implications for motivation, emotional experience, and decision making. Emotion, 15, 90–103.
29.
TamirM.FordB. Q. (2012). When feeling bad is expected to be good: Emotion regulation and outcome expectancies in social conflicts. Emotion, 12, 807–816.
30.
TamirM.MitchellC.GrossJ. J. (2008).Hedonic and Instrumental Motives in Anger Regulation. Psychological Science, 19, 324–328.
