Emotional intensity follows an inverted-U curve as deterrents grow

Evidence

Assuming that reasons for feeling happy would act as deterrence to sadness, Brehm, Brummett, and Harvey (1999) induced sadness in participants and then presented them with gift certificates of different amounts. When participants received a small deterrent to sadness (a 1 gift certificate), sadness decreased compared to a control condition in which no deterrents were presented. The intensity of sadness increased as the deterrent became larger (2), and then decreased again as the deterrent increased further ($3). … Under the assumption that unhappy news could act as a deterrent to happiness, D’Anello (1997) presented happy participants with varying degrees of bad news (a loss in a lottery). Compared to a control condition, participants felt less happy when presented with a small loss. As the amount of loss increased to a moderate amount, the intensity of happiness increased, but then decreased as the loss increased further. — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 562

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the deterrence theoretical framework the chapter applies to collective guilt intensity.
• XREF: connects to: Emotional intensity rises then falls as deterrents increase. — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 26; Known deterrents produce non-monotonic emotional intensity peaking at function importance. — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 32; Emotional intensity rises to a maximum set by function importance when deterrents are unknown. — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 31 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Emotional intensity rises then falls as deterrents increase. #corroborates (0.98) — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 26
• Known deterrents produce non-monotonic emotional intensity peaking at function importance. #expands (0.85) — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 32
• Emotional intensity rises to a maximum set by function importance when deterrents are unknown. #expands (0.78) — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 31
• Motivational intensity rises and falls nonlinearly with task difficulty. #corroborates (0.75) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 558