General Discussion

The two aims of the present analysis were exploring the plausibility of (1) the predicted independence of the control and the power checks, and (2) the proposed

relationship between particular individual difference variables and the control and the power checks. More specifically, we explored whether the control check effects in brain activity and facial muscle activity would covary with beliefs about the locus of control, and whether the power check effects in these measures would covary with beliefs about one’s self-esteem and self-efficacy.

The principal component analysis on the scales scores of the individual difference variables extracted two principal components. On the first component, the scales that are related to internal (ability) beliefs about the causes of events loaded with high magnitude. In contrast, scales that are associated with external (controllability) beliefs about the causes of events, loaded highly on the second component. This result indirectly supports the predicted two-dimensional structure of two independent appraisal checks operating to the estimate the coping potential. These appraisal checks evaluate (1) the external controllability and (2) the internal ability whether one can act on the event or change its contingencies (e.g., Scherer, 2009; cf. chapter 2). Given that the internal belief dimension loaded on the first component, explaining most of the variance, suggests that a biased internal belief had a larger impact on cognitive processes than a biased external belief. This result is consistent with the theoretical analysis of the conceptualizations of coping potential appraisal (see chapter 2), suggesting two key aspects of coping potential: ability and controllability.

In a next step, we assumed a two-dimensional belief structure of internal and external beliefs. Therefore, an internal and an external belief variable were created through averaging of the scale scores that loaded highly on the same component. These beliefs variables were used each as a covariate in an exploratory post hoc analysis on the concurrently recorded

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 174 ERP and the facial EMG data. In the experiment, the appraisal checks of goal conduciveness, control, and power were simultaneously manipulated in feedback stimuli. The results of the covariate analysis on the psychophysiological measures showed differential effects on the recorded data.

In the central (ERP) measures, a biased internal belief influenced the control check effects as well as the cumulative effect of all three appraisal checks on FRN amplitudes. It also had an influence on the cumulative effect of the control and the power checks on P300 amplitudes. In contrast, a biased external belief affected the cumulative effects of the goal conduciveness and the power checks as well as the control and the power checks. In general, the results of unbiased internal beliefs were similar to the results of unbiased external beliefs, which were predominantly distinct appraisal check main effects on the ERP components. In particular, on FRN amplitudes, effects of the control and the power checks were

differentiated in form of parallel main effects. On P300 amplitudes, parallel main effects of all appraisal checks and an interaction effect between the goal conduciveness and the power checks emerged. The covariation between a biased internal belief and the goal conduciveness check on P300 amplitudes can be concealed by the proposal that esteem and general self-efficacy beliefs are associated with personal goals (Mone, Baker, & Jeffries, 1995). In other word, these results imply that a differentiated processing of the feedback-stimulus

information was carried out when the internal and external beliefs were unbiased compared with when they were biased. Biased beliefs seem to have influenced the cumulative effects of the appraisal checks.

In the peripheral (facial EMG) measures, the internal and external belief variables had little impact compared with their effects on the ERP measures. A biased internal belief

influenced the power check effects in frontalis activity, whereas a biased external belief affected the cumulative effects of the goal conduciveness and the power checks in corrugator

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 175 activity. Thus, in frontalis activity, the power check effects were differentiated only in those participants who had a biased internal belief. In corrugator activity, the cumulative effects occurred similarly in participants independent of a biased or unbiased external belief.

Taken together, the internal and external belief variables had a larger impact on the cognitive processes (the ERPs) that estimate the degree of perceived control (the control check) and ability to act on events (the power check) than on the facial expressions that occurred in response to these events. The generalization of the results is limited because these covariations were found in the minority of the participants but the results of a careful outlier analysis yielded similar (significant) effects independent of the exclusion of the potential outliers. Nevertheless, the results of the covariate analysis encourage a systematic empirical investigation of the influence of individual difference variables on the appraisal process and the appraisal-driven effects of the upper face.

In future studies the following questions concerning the impact of internal and external beliefs could be addressed. (a) The predicted impact of internal and external beliefs on emotion elicitation and differentiation (e.g., Scherer & Brosch, 2009). For example, whether ability (power) overestimation is associated with elevated experiences of joy and pride, whereas underestimation might more readily elicit sadness or shame. Furthermore, it might be worth to examine whether a particular combination of an internal and external belief influences emotional responding, for example, an overestimation of internal ability and an underestimation of the controllability might have another impact on the appraisal of an event than an underestimation of both situational aspects. (b) Beliefs or appraisal biases can be important to explain emotional disturbances, for example, an underestimation of control (i.e., a biased external belief) might be associated with hopelessness and depression; an

overestimation of power (i.e., a biased internal belief) could be related to mania, whereas an underestimation might lead to helplessness and depression (Kaiser & Scherer, 1998). And (c)

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 176 the impact of biased internal and external beliefs in normal students could be investigated in more detail by using an extreme-group design, which could be based on the students’ scoring on the locus of control, the self-efficacy, and the self-esteem scales.

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 177

3.4.6. References

Aluja, A., Rolland, J. P., Garcia, L. F., & Rossier, J. (2007). Dimensionality of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale and its relationships with the three- and the five-factor personality models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 246–249. doi:

10.1080/00223890701268116

Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality: Vol. 1 Psychological aspects. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Aue, T., Flykt, A., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). First evidence for differential and sequential efferent effects of stimulus relevance and goal conduciveness appraisal. Biological Psychology, 74, 347–357. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.001

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175–1184. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.44.9.1175

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Cattell, R. B. (1966). Scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

Delaney, H. D., & Maxwell, S. E. (1981). On using analysis of covariance in repeated measures designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 105–123. doi:

10.1207/s15327906mbr1601_6

Delplanque, S., Grandjean, D., Chrea, C., Coppin, G., Aymard, L., Cayeux, I., . . . Scherer, K.

R. (2009). Sequential unfolding of novelty and pleasantness appraisals of odors:

Evidence from facial electromyography and autonomic reactions. Emotion, 9, 316–

328. doi: 10.1037/a0015369

Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 Component a Manifestation of Context Updating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 357–374. doi:

10.1017/S0140525X00058027

Dumont, M., Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2000). French adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale - Auto-efficacité généralisée. Psychology. Freie Universität Berlin.

Berlin, Germany. Retrieved from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/french.htm Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson,

K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–

595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 178 Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of

emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18, 1050–1057. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02024.x

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Holroyd, C. B., & Simons, R. F. (2006). The feedback-related negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological Psychology, 71, 148–154. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.04.001

Kaiser, S., & Scherer, K. R. (1998). Models of "normal" emotions applied to facial and vocal expression in clinical disorders. In W. F. Flack & J. D. Laird (Eds.), Emotions in psychopathology: Theory and research (pp. 81–98). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity.

Psychophysiology, 38, 557–577. doi: 10.1017/S0048577201990559

Lanctot, N., & Hess, U. (2007). The timing of appraisals. Emotion, 7, 207–212. doi:

10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.207

Langer, E. J. (1975). Illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.32.2.311

Langer, E. J., & Roth, J. (1975). Heads I win, tails its chance: Illusion of control as a function of sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 951–955. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.951

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive motivational relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.46.8.819

Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 377–383. doi:

10.1080/00223891.1974.10119988

Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale:

Multicultural validation studies. Journal of Psychology, 139, 439–457. doi:

10.3200/Jrlp.139.5.439-457

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system-theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246 Mone, M. A., Baker, D. D., & Jeffries, F. (1995). Predictive-validity and time dependency of

self-efficacy, self-esteem, personal goals, and academic-performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 716–727. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055005002

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 179 Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., Holroyd, C. B., Schurger, A., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). Sensitivity

of electrophysiological activity from medial frontal cortex to utilitarian and

performance feedback. Cerebral Cortex, 14, 741–747. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhh034 Pfabigan, D. M., Alexopoulos, J., Bauer, H., & Sailer, U. (2011). Manipulation of feedback

expectancy and valence induces negative and positive reward prediction error signals manifest in event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 48, 656–664. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01136.x

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2009). Valence focus and self-Esteem lability:

Reacting to hedonic cues in the social environment. Emotion, 9, 406–418. doi:

10.1037/A0015691

Polich, J., & Kok, A. (1995). Cognitive and biological determinants of P300—An integrative review. Biological Psychology, 41, 103–146. doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(95)05130-9 Reisenzein, R., Boerdgen, S., Holtbernd, T., & Matz, D. (2006). Evidence for strong

dissociation between emotion and facial displays: The case of surprise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 295–315. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.295 Reisenzein, R., & Weber, H. (2008). Personality and emotion. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 54–71). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal

processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Unversity Press.

Rossier, J., Rigozzi, C., & Berthoud, S. (2002). Validation of the French translation of the Levenson's locus of control scale (IPC). Influence of demographic variables and personality. Annales Medico-Psychologiques, 160, 138–148. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4487(01)00111-1

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1–28. Retrieved from:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/.

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 180 Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to construct of internal

versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 56-67. doi: 10.1037/h0076301

Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process

approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–317).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Scherer, K. R. (1997). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition & Emotion, 11, 113–150. doi:

10.1080/026999397379962

Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion:

Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the Component Process Model. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1307–1351. doi:

10.1080/02699930902928969

Scherer, K. R., & Brosch, T. (2009). Culture-specific appraisal biases contribute to emotion dispositions. European Journal of Personality, 23, 265–288. doi: 10.1002/per.714 Shoda, Y., LeeTiernan, S., & Mischel, W. (2002). Personality as a dynamical system:

Emergence of stability and distinctiveness from intra- and interpersonal interactions.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 316–325. doi:

10.1207/S15327957pspr0604_06

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838. doi:

10.1037//0022-3514.48.4.813

Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2009). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1352–1372. doi:

10.1080/02699930902860386

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Smith, C. A., & Pope, L. K. (1992). Appraisal and emotion: The interactional contributions of dispositional and situational factors. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 32–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 181 van Reekum, C. M., & Scherer, K. R. (1997). Levels of processing in emotion-antecedent

appraisal. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 259–300). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

Vasey, M. W., & Thayer, J. F. (1987). The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: A multivariate solution. Psychophysiology, 24, 479–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00324.x

Wohl, M. J. A., & Enzle, M. E. (2002). The deployment of personal luck: Sympathetic magic and illusory control in games of pure chance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1388–1397. doi: 10.1177/014616702236870

Wranik, T., & Scherer, K. R. (2010). Why do I get angry? A componential appraisal

approach. In M. Potegal, G. Stemmler & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Internation handbook of anger (pp. 243–265). New York, NY: Springer.

CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 182