There are two types of emotions according to most emotion theorists: one type is called basic emotions (e.g., sadness and joy) and the other type is called self-conscious emotions (e.g., shame and pride; Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2004). Both types of emotions probably evolved through natural selection to promote survival and reproductive goals, and the attainment of social goals (e.g., cooperation; Gilead, Katzir, Eyal, & Liberman, Reference Gilead, Katzir, Eyal and Liberman2016). Although the basic emotions and self-conscious emotions of humans have the same primary functions (survival goals and social goals), self-conscious emotions, which have received relatively less attention than basic emotions, are more specialized than basic emotions (Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2004; Tracy, Robins, & Schriber, Reference Tracy, Robins and Schriber2009). Tellingly, basic emotions appear within the first nine months of human infancy (Thompson, Reference Thompson2015), whereas self-conscious emotions, which are more cognitively complex than basic emotions, do not develop until 18 to 24 months after birth (Rochat, Reference Rochat2015). Furthermore, all six basic emotions have discrete, universally recognized facial expressions (Ekman, Reference Ekman2004), but researchers have yet to find distinct facial expressions for any of the self-conscious emotions. Finally, the most important characteristic of self-conscious emotions is that they require self-representations and self-awareness, which make them more socially oriented than the basic emotions (M. Lewis, Sullivan, Stanger, & Weiss, Reference Lewis, Sullivan, Stanger and Weiss1989). It is true that basic emotions such as sadness and fear can involve self-evaluative processes, but only self-conscious emotions require these processes.
Self-conscious emotions are fundamentally important to a wide range of psychological processes that evolved through natural selection and are common in our daily lives because they have served essential functional and adaptive roles in attaining, maintaining and communicating social status throughout our evolutionary history (Tracy & Matsumoto, Reference Tracy and Matsumoto2008; Tracy, Shariff, & Cheng, Reference Tracy, Shariff and Cheng2010). When it comes to motivating complex normal and pathological human behaviors, self-conscious emotions are, in a sense, quite basic. Our every social act can be influenced by even a slight chance of feeling such self-conscious emotions as public shame or loss of face (Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2004). For example, inappropriate self-conscious emotions can reinforce maladaptive behavior, and poor behavioral regulation is associated with an impaired ability to interpret the self-conscious emotions of others (Beer, Heerey, Keltner, Scabini, & Knight, Reference Beer, Heerey, Keltner, Scabini and Knight2003). Additionally, self-conscious emotions (e.g., shame and guilt) during childhood predict risky behavior in young adulthood (Stuewig et al., Reference Stuewig, Tangney, Kendall, Folk, Meyer and Dearing2015). In short, self-conscious emotions play a central role in motivating and regulating almost all thoughts, feelings and behaviors (Campos, Reference Campos, Tangney and Fischer1995; Fischer & Tangney, Reference Fischer, Tangney, Tangney and Fischer1995); hence, it is important to determine how self-conscious emotions contribute to our survival goals and social goals.
Symbolic threats involve threats related to a group’s or an individual’s worldview, morality, philosophy, ideology, belief system, values or religion (Stephan & Mealy, Reference Stephan, Mealy and Nelson2009). Previous studies provide evidence that symbolic threats can affect basic emotions, and those emotional reactions to symbolic threats are likely to be negative (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, Reference Mackie, Devos and Smith2000; Stephan, Renfro, & Davis, Reference Stephan, Renfro, Davis, Wagner, Tropp, Finchilescu and Tredoux2008). For example, heterosexuals may feel disgust when they see a gay man because the mate-choice view of heterosexuals is threatened (Cottrell & Neuberg, Reference Cottrell and Neuberg2005; Rickett, Reference Rickett2006). Other people may feel angry when they perceive a threat to their in-group’s reputation, which is another example of symbolic group threat. Moreover, fear can be induced when one perceives a threat to one’s self-image (a form of symbolic individual threat; Smith, Reference Smith, Mackie and Hamilton1993; Stephan & Mealy, Reference Stephan, Mealy and Nelson2009).
The social self is central for maintaining social relationships that are essential to survival and reproduction, according to social self-preservation theory (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, Reference Dickerson, Gruenewald and Kemeny2004; Kemeny, Gruenewald, & Dickerson, Reference Kemeny, Gruenewald and Dickerson2004). Self-conscious emotions are experienced (particularly shame-related emotions) when the fundamental goal of maintaining a positive social self is threatened. Furthermore, according to the intergroup threat theory, symbolic threat can induce a number of emotional reactions (Stephan & Mealy, Reference Stephan, Mealy and Nelson2009). For example, threats directed at individual group members would be expected to evoke emotions tied to a concern for the self (e.g., for one’s self-image), such as vulnerability and fear. Threats directed at the group as a whole, by contrast, would be expected to evoke emotions tied to a concern for the welfare of the group (e.g., for the group’s reputation), such as resentment and anger (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, Reference Doosje, Branscombe, Spears and Manstead1998; Stephan & Mealy, Reference Stephan, Mealy and Nelson2009). Previous research suggests that self-conscious emotions may also be sensitive to symbolic threats, as evidenced by research on intergroup threat that indicates symbolic threats can also threaten one’s social self (Legault & Green-Demers, Reference Legault and Green-Demers2012). This may happen because symbolic threats arouse feelings of inferiority and a belief that the in-group is at a disadvantage – for example, in international competition for status (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, Reference Riek, Mania and Gaertner2006) – although there is no direct evidence to verify this hypothesis. Thus, the current study investigated the potential relationship between symbolic threat and self-conscious emotions.
The positive nature of one’s social self is correlated with positive self-conscious emotions such as pride, whereas the negative nature of one’s social self is correlated with negative self-conscious emotions, such as shame, guilt and loss of face (M. Lewis, Reference Lewis1997). Undoubtedly, a symbolic threat may cause individuals to focus on the negative nature of their social self, which should elicit negative self-conscious emotions (Stephan & Mealy, Reference Stephan, Mealy and Nelson2009). Therefore, we assessed negative self-conscious emotions in the present study by focusing on the relationship between symbolic threat and negative self-conscious emotions. We already know individuals express negative basic emotions (e.g., anger and fear) under conditions of symbolic threat, and the present study was designed to determine whether symbolic threats can also elicit negative self-conscious emotions.
There are many important positive self-conscious emotions (e.g., pride) and negative self-conscious emotions (e.g., embarrassment and guilt; Muris & Meesters, Reference Muris and Meesters2014; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, Reference Tangney, Miller, Flicker and Barlow1996). In the present study, we focused on three common negative self-conscious emotions (i.e., shame, guilt, and loss of face), because previous research indicates these three negative self-conscious emotions might be elicited by threatening information (Stephan & Mealy, Reference Stephan, Mealy and Nelson2009). As the “premier social emotion”, shame appears to be the most common emotional response to threats to the social self (Gausel, Leach, Vignoles, & Brown, Reference Gausel, Leach, Vignoles and Brown2012; McGregor & Elliot, Reference McGregor and Elliot2005), which suggests that the activation of specific physiological systems accompanies shame in response to threats to the social self, and that these psychobiological responses are associated with specific behavioral reactions (e.g., submission and appeasement) to such threats (Libby, Valenti, Pfent, & Eibach, Reference Libby, Valenti, Pfent and Eibach2011). Guilt is especially common among Asian students when their academic performance is poor, as academic achievement is considered an obligation in Asian cultures (Tao & Hong, Reference Tao and Hong2013); it is also elicited by personal shortcomings when true self-conceptions are primed (Vess, Schlegel, Hicks, & Arndt, Reference Vess, Schlegel, Hicks and Arndt2014). In addition, people may experience feelings of guilt when faced with negative information about their group’s past (Doosje et al., Reference Doosje, Branscombe, Spears and Manstead1998; Swim & Miller, Reference Swim and Miller1999). Previous research indicates that shame is the most likely emotional response to situations that threaten social relationships or one’s social image (e.g., failing to meet the expectations of others, hurting others’ feelings, or social-role violations), whereas guilt is the more likely emotional response to violations of social norms (e.g., lying, cheating, or neglecting a responsibility; see Keltner & Buswell, Reference Keltner and Buswell1996; Tracy & Robins, Reference Tracy and Robins2006). While guilt and shame both involve negative self-evaluations, guilt entails renouncing a particular behavior, whereas shame typically entails a global negative evaluation of the entire self (H.B. Lewis, Reference Lewis1971). Loss of face is a special negative self-conscious emotion, which can be treated as one type of shame in Eastern cultures. Previous research has shown that guilt and shame are present in every society, but loss of face is present particularly in East Asian societies (Bedford, Reference Bedford2004; Ho, Reference Ho1976). “Face” or “lian” refers to one’s dignity, self-respect, feeling of social concern and the ability to fulfil social obligations in front of others. Other people come to recognize and accept a person’s “face” or “lian” that the person claims for him or herself (Hwang, Reference Hwang1987). Face is very salient in East Asian social relations, whereas it has less social significance in more individualistic societies such as the United States. The importance of face in East Asian cultures lies in its function as a mechanism for maintaining group harmony. Loss of face, which is defined as a deterioration in one’s social image, is regarded as a consequence of interpersonal conflict and a provocation for counter-attack. The depth of this emotion (loss of face) is related to the extent to which one believes face/lian is important (Brunner & Wang, Reference Brunner and Wang1988; Zane & Yeh, Reference Zane, Yeh, Kurasaki, Okazaki and Sue2002). In light of the above research findings, the present study focused on the effect of symbolic threat on three negative self-conscious emotions —shame, guilt and loss of face — that may help people’s emotional and social wellbeing.
We controlled for the degree of group identification in the present study because it is one of the most important variables influencing both symbolic threat and self-conscious emotions. On one hand, group identification has been shown to moderate the consequences of perceiving intergroup threat. Previous research suggests that group identification (the importance of the group to one’s self concept) is not equal among all members of a group, and members with high group identification are more likely than those with low group identification to both perceive and react to symbolic threats from an out-group (Riek et al., Reference Riek, Mania and Gaertner2006; Stephan et al., Reference Stephan, Renfro, Davis, Wagner, Tropp, Finchilescu and Tredoux2008) because they consider the in-group to be important to their self-identity. On the other hand, group identification plays an important role in terms of the consequences of negative self-conscious emotions. People are motivated to hold a positive view of their group, and they are more likely to do so when they identify more strongly with that group (Branscombe & Wann, Reference Branscombe and Wann1991, Reference Branscombe and Wann1994; Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, Reference Doosje, Ellemers and Spears1995). If persons attach great importance to membership in a particular group (high identification), they are less likely to accept a negative characterization of that group when confronted with information that portrays their group negatively (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, Reference Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, Doosje, Ellemers, Spears and Doosje1999). As a result, members with high identification will seek ways to avoid experiencing negative self-conscious emotions (Doosje & Branscombe, Reference Doosje and Branscombe2003).
Three studies were conducted to assess directly the influence of symbolic threats on the negative self-conscious emotions of shame, guilt and loss of face in a Chinese-context. The purpose of Studies 1 and 2 was to explore whether symbolic threat influences self-conscious emotions in different conditions, and Study 3’s purpose was to rule out the effect of social status on our results. Specifically, we examined the Mandarin words for shame (羞愧), guilt (内疚) and loss of face (丢脸). Symbolic threats were manipulated in all three experiments, in which participants with the same level of in-group identification were randomly divided into a symbolic threat condition or a control condition in each experiment. We hypothesized that participants in the symbolic threat condition would report more negative self-conscious emotions in all three experiments.
STUDY 1
Methods
Participants
An a priori power analysis (G*Power 3.1.9.2; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, Reference Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner and Lang2009) that used a large effect size (ES = 0.45) indicated that a minimum of 42 individuals (total sample size) would be needed for a power level of .81 (Cohen, Reference Cohen1992). Hence, 60 Chinese students (16 males) from Southwest University, who were between the ages of 18 and 23 years (M = 21.77 years, SD = 1.30), participated in this experiment. All of the students were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reported no history of neurological disorders. Participants were randomly assigned to the symbolic threat condition (30 participants) and the control condition (30 participants). The study adhered to the ethical standards for conducting research in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Review Board of Southwest University. Informed consent forms were completed by all the participants prior to commencing the study.
Stimuli and Procedures
Group identification measure
Group identification has been shown to moderate the consequences of perceiving intergroup threat (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, Reference Ellemers, Spears and Doosje2002); therefore, we tried to ensure that all the participants had the same level of group identification. Thus, when the participants arrived at the laboratory, they completed a Chinese identity scale in which they rated eight items about their identification with China (α = .881) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; e.g., “It is very important to me to be Chinese”).
Threat induction and manipulation
Two articles were used to create the threat versus control conditions. Participants in the symbolic threat condition read an article that mentioned Japanese culture was more influential than Chinese culture in North America, whereas participants in the control condition read an article about next week’s weather. After they finished reading, their sense of symbolic threat was measured by the question: “How much symbolic intergroup threat did you feel from Japan towards China after reading the article?” The response options ranged from 0 to 6: 0 = not at all, 6 = very much.
Negative self-conscious emotions
Following the symbolic threat manipulation check, the participants in both conditions were asked to rate the intensity of their personal negative self-conscious emotions (i.e., guilt, shame and loss of face) while they were reading the article on a 7-point scale (0 = not at all, 6 = very much); the Mandarin words for guilt (内疚), shame (羞愧), and loss of face (丢脸) were used. In order to reduce participants’ awareness of the study’s purpose, they were also asked to rate nine other emotions (e.g., depression and anger), which were used as distracters (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, Reference Kitayama, Mesquita and Karasawa2006).
Results
Identification Measure
The mean score for Chinese identity was 5.73 (SD = 0.89) for all the participants (N = 60), and no significant difference was found between the symbolic threat condition (M = 5.92, SD = 0.78) and the control condition (M = 5.54, SD = 0.96), t(58) = 1.699, p = .095, d = 0.446, 95% CI [-0.068, 0.835].
Symbolic Threat Induction Manipulation Check
An independent t test showed that participants in the symbolic threat condition (M = 4.40, SD = 1.35) reported a higher sense of symbolic threat than did participants in the control condition (M = 1.37, SD = 1.50), t(58) = 8.231, p < .001, d = 2.162, 95% CI [2.296, 3.371]. These results indicated that the manipulation of symbolic threat in the present study was successful.
Negative Self-Conscious Emotions
The Mandarin words for guilt (内疚), shame (羞愧) and loss of face (丢脸) were examined after participants finished reading the articles. We analyzed group differences in negative self-conscious emotions using a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), which included group identification as a covariate. As expected, the MANCOVA revealed there was a significant difference between the symbolic threat group’s mean on negative self-conscious emotions and the control group’s mean, F(1,57) = 53.762, p < .001, ηp2 = .485, 95% CI [1.702, 2.981]. Specifically, participants in the symbolic threat condition reported a greater sense of guilt (M = 2.80, SD = 1.88) than did the participants in the control condition (M = 0.27, SD = 0.64), F(1,57) = 46.673, p < .001, ηp2 = .450, 95% CI [1.810, 3.311]. A sense of shame was also higher for participants in the symbolic threat condition (M = 2.70, SD = 1.68) than participants in the control condition (M = 0.43, SD = 0.86), F(1,57)= 39.987, p < .001, ηp2 = .406, 95% CI [1.509, 2.933]. Similarly, we found a greater sense of loss of face among participants in the symbolic threat condition (M = 2.57, SD = 1.91) than participants in the control condition (M = 0.37, SD = 0.81), F(1,57) = 33.064, p < .001, ηp2 = .367, 95% CI [1.461, 3.023].
We conducted the same MANCOVA for the nine other emotions (e.g., depression and anger) as “distractors”. There were significant differences between the symbolic threat group and the control group on five of the other emotions (dispirited, frustration, angry, self-esteem, and sympathy; all ps ≤ .003), but no significant effect emerged for the other four emotions (respect, friendly feelings, pride and superiority; all ps > 0.067).
Discussion
As expected, negative self-conscious emotions were experienced by individuals who perceived symbolic threat. We conducted Study 2, in which the symbolic threat between two other countries was manipulated in order to replicate the findings of Study 1. We hypothesized we would obtain the same results observed in Study 1.
STUDY 2
Methods
Participants
The aim of Study 2 was to replicate the effect of symbolic threat on negative self-conscious emotions observed in Study 1 by testing a similar number of participants. A total of 51 Chinese students (14 males) from Southwest University, who were between 18 and 23 years (M = 20.88, SD = 1.53), took part in this experiment. All were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reported no history of neurological disorders. Participants were randomly assigned to the symbolic threat condition (26 participants) or the control condition (25 participants). The ethical standards for conducting the research were followed in line with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the study’s protocol was approved by the Research Review Board of Southwest University. Informed consent forms were completed by all the participants prior to the commencement of the study.
Stimuli and Procedures
Group identification measure
The eight-item Chinese identity scale used in Study 2 was the same as that used in Study 1.
Threat induction and manipulation
Two articles were used to create the threat and control conditions. Participants in the symbolic threat condition read an article titled “American culture has far more influence than Chinese culture”, which made the point that the current global influence of American culture is greater than that of Chinese culture. Participants in the control condition read an article about the weather during the next week. After participants finished reading the article, their sense of symbolic threat was measured by the question: “How much intergroup threat did you feel from America towards China after reading the article?” The response options ranged from 0 to 6; 0 = not at all, 6 = very much.
Negative self-conscious emotions
The measures of negative self-conscious emotions used in Study 2 were the same as those used in Study 1.
Subjective relative socioeconomic status
High status is one of the sources of intergroup threat, according to intergroup threat theory (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios Morrison, Reference Stephan, Ybarra, Rios Morrison and Nelson2009), and research indicates that the United States has a higher socioeconomic status than China (Swaine, Reference Swaine2013). As Study 2 was designed to examine the effect of intergroup threat on negative self-conscious emotions when the threatening out-group had a higher socioeconomic status than the in-group, we chose the United States to be the symbolic threatening group. After completing the negative self-conscious emotions measure, the participants completed the Subjective Relative Socioeconomic Status (SES) scale (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, Reference Adler, Epel, Castellazzo and Ickovics2000). A ladder with 10 rungs was given to every participant, and they were informed that the ladder represented where countries stand in the world. The countries located at the top of the ladder symbolized optimum conditions; for instance, the greatest jobs, the most money, and the best education. The countries located at the bottom of the ladder symbolized the opposite conditions; that is, they represent the worst jobs, the least money, and the worst education. Participants were asked: “If China is on the 6th rung, which rung of the ladder do you think would best represent the United States? Please place an X on that rung.” Then, the participants were randomly assigned to the symbolic threat condition (26 participants) and the control condition (25 participants).
Results
Identification Measure
The mean score for Chinese identity was 6.01 (SD = 0.60) for all the participants (N = 51), and there was no significance difference between the symbolic threat condition (M = 5.88, SD = 0.66) and the control condition (M = 6.16, SD = 0.50), t(49) = 1.687, p = .098, d = 0.482, 95% CI [-0.611, 0.533].
Symbolic Threat Induction Manipulation Check
Participants in the symbolic threat condition reported a greater sense of symbolic threat (M = 4.54, SD = 0.90) than participants in the control condition (M = 1.40, SD = 1.38), t(49) = 9.621, p < .001, d = 2.789, 95% CI [2.483, 3.794]. These results indicated that the manipulation of symbolic threat was successful.
Negative Self-Conscious Emotions
We analyzed group differences in negative self-conscious emotions using a MANCOVA that included group identification and subjective relative socioeconomic status as covariates. As expected, the MANCOVA showed that there was a significant difference between the symbolic threat group’s mean on negative self-conscious emotions and the control group’s mean, F(1,47) = 23.815, p < .001, ηp2 = .336, 95% CI [0.910, 2.187]. Specifically, participants in the symbolic threat condition reported a greater sense of guilt (M = 1.96, SD = 1.68) than the participants in the control condition (M = 0.88, SD = 1.33), F(1,47) =6.451, p = .014, ηp2 = .121, 95% CI [0.235, 2.029]. A sense of shame was also higher among participants in the symbolic threat condition (M = 2.12, SD = 1.70) than in the control condition (M = 0.36, SD = 0.81), F(1,47) = 23.470, p < .001, ηp2 = .333, 95% CI [1.698, 2.658]. Finally, we found a higher sense of loss of face among participants in the symbolic threat condition (M = 1.92, SD = 1.47) than participants in the control condition (M = 0.32, SD = 0.85), F(1,47) = 21.493, p < .001, ηp2 = .314, 95% CI [0.926, 2.345].
We conducted the same MANCOVA for the nine other emotions (e.g., depression and anger) as distractors. There were significant differences between the symbolic threat group and the control group on six of the other emotions (depression, frustration, anger, self-esteem, pride, superiority; all ps ≤ .013), but no significant effect emerged for the other three emotions (respect, friendly feelings, and sympathy; all ps > .067).
Relative Status Measure
A one-sample t test revealed that all the participants thought the subjective relative socioeconomic status of the United States (M = 8.25, SD = 0.87) was higher than that of China (M = 6.00, SD = 0.00), t(50) = 18.548, p < .001, d = 2.682, 95% CI [2.011, 2.499].
Discussion
As expected, participants in the symbolic threat condition reported more negative self-conscious emotions than did participants in the control condition. Overall, Study 1 and Study 2 indicated that symbolic threat affected self-conscious emotions. However, subjective relative socioeconomic status was not measured in Study 1, and the symbolic threat out-group used in Study 2 had a higher social status than the in-group, so Study 3 explored how symbolic threat influences self-conscious emotions independent of the effect of social status. To do so, the symbolic threat posed to China by India, whose social status might be lower than that of China, was manipulated in Study 3.
STUDY 3
Method
Participants
Study 3 tested the effect of symbolic social threat on self-conscious emotions in a sample of participants similar to those studied in the first two experiments. Hence, 49 Chinese students (12 males) from Southwest University, who ranged in age from 18 to 22 years (M = 20.04 years, SD = 1.22), took part in this experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to the symbolic threat condition (25 participants) and the control condition (24 participants). All of the participants were right-handed, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reported no history of neurological disorders. The ethical standards used in conducting the research were consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki and the research was approved by the Research Review Board of Southwest University. Informed consent forms were completed by all the participants before the study began.
Stimuli and Procedures
Group identification measure
The eight-item Chinese identity scale used in Study 3 was the same as that used in Studies 1 and 2.
Symbolic threat induction
Two articles were used once again to create the threat and control conditions. The participants in the symbolic threat condition read an article that stated that Indian culture was more influential than Chinese culture in the world. The participants in the control condition read an article about next week’s weather. The participants’ sense of symbolic threat was measured after they read the article by the question: “How much symbolic intergroup threat did you feel from India towards China after reading the article?” The response options ranged from 0 to 6; 0 = not at all, 6 = very much.
Negative self-conscious emotions
After the symbolic threat manipulation check, the participants finished the measurement of negative self-conscious emotions, which were the same as that used in Studies 1 and 2.
Subjective relative socioeconomic status
As previous research indicates India has a lower socioeconomic status than China (Pant, Reference Pant2007), we chose India to be the out-group that posed a symbolic threat to examine the effect of intergroup threat on negative self-conscious emotions in Study 3. Following the measure of negative self-conscious emotions, participants completed the Subjective Relative Socioeconomic Status (SES) scale (Adler et al., Reference Adler, Epel, Castellazzo and Ickovics2000).
A ladder with 10 rungs was given to every participant, and they were informed that the ladder represented where countries stand in the world. The countries at the top of the ladder symbolized optimum condition; for instance, the greatest jobs, the most money, and the best education. The countries located at the bottom of the ladder symbolized the opposite conditions; that is, they represent the worst jobs, the least money, and the worst education. Participants were asked: “If China is on the 6th rung, which rung of the ladder do you think would best represent India? Please place an X on that rung.”
Results
Identification Measure
The mean score for Chinese identity was 6.00 (SD = 0.52) for all the participants (N = 49), and there was no significant difference between symbolic threat condition (M = 5.87, SD = 0.60) and the control condition (M = 6.13, SD = 0.39), t(47) = 1.779, p = .082, d = 0.519, 95% CI [-0.548, 0.034].
Symbolic Threat Induction Manipulation Check
Participants in the symbolic threat condition reported a greater sense of symbolic threat (M = 3.44, SD = 0.96) than participants in the control condition (M = 1.71, SD = 1.40), t(47) = 5.071, p < .001, d = 1.451, 95% CI [1.045, 2.419]. These results indicate that the manipulation of symbolic threat was successful.
Negative Self-Conscious Emotions
We analyzed group differences in negative self-conscious emotions using a MANCOVA that included group identification and subjective relative socioeconomic status as covariates. As expected, the MANCOVA found a significant difference between the symbolic threat group’s mean on negative self-conscious emotions and the control group’ mean, F(1, 45) = 22.227, p < .001, ηp2 = .331, 95% CI [0.943, 2.351]. The participants in the symbolic threat condition (M = 2.16, SD = 1.62) reported more guilt than participants in control condition (M = 0.88, SD = 1.08), F(1,45) = 11.895, p = .001, ηp2 = .209, 95% CI [0.592, 2.254], as well as more shame (M = 2.32, SD = 1.68) than participants in the control condition (M = 0.54, SD = 0.93), F(1,45) = 20.181, p < .001, η p2 = .310, 95% CI [1.001, 2.628]. Finally, they reported a greater loss of face (M = 2.04, SD = 1.67) than did the participants in the control condition (M = 0.42, SD = 0.78), F(1,45) = 18.627, p < .001, ηp2 = .293, 95% CI [0.909, 2.499].
We conducted the same MANCOVA for the nine other emotions (e.g., depression and anger) as distractors. There were significant differences between the symbolic threat group and the control group on the three other emotions (depression, frustration, and self-esteem; all ps ≤ .028), but no significant effect was found for other six emotions (anger, pride, superiority, respect, friendly feelings, and sympathy) (all ps > .115).
Relative Status Measure
All participants thought the subjective relative socioeconomic status of India (M = 3.69, SD = 1.02) was lower than that of China (M = 6.00, SD = 0.00), t(48) = 15.753, p < .001, d = 3.203, 95% CI [2.012, 2.600].
Discussion
The results of Study 3 were consistent with those of Studies 1 and 2, with self-conscious emotions emerging in the symbolic threat condition rather than the control condition. Moreover, the results of Experiment 3 demonstrated that guilt, shame and loss of face was experienced in the symbolic threat group, even when the threat was from an out-group with lower social status.
General Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of symbolic threat on negative self-conscious emotions. Study 1 found that symbolic threat could elicit negative self-conscious emotions and Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1, in that negative self-conscious emotions emerged in both studies when participants felt a symbolic threat from a high-status out-group. The results of Study 3 showed that participants felt negative self-conscious emotions even when the symbolic threat came from a lower status out-group. Taken together, these results indicate that symbolic threat elicits negative self-conscious emotions, such as guilt, shame and loss of face, regardless of the status of the threatening out-group.
The present study aimed to investigate the effect of symbolic threat on negative self-conscious emotions. Our results suggest that intergroup symbolic threat can facilitate the emergence self-conscious emotions at the group level. Based on self-categorization theory and social identity theory, people’s emotions can be influenced by the group to which they belong, due to the people’s motivation to share their identity with other group members (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, Reference Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell1987; Mackie et al., Reference Mackie, Devos and Smith2000). Where there is shared identity, there is a shift towards cognitive and effective co-action among group members, which leads people to treat group identity as a part of their self-identity (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, Reference Doosje, Branscombe, Spears and Manstead2006). Negative conscious emotions emerge when this shared group identity is threatened (Branscombe & Wann, Reference Branscombe and Wann1991, Reference Branscombe and Wann1994; Doosje et al., Reference Doosje, Ellemers and Spears1995), as observed in the present study.
The feeling that one has failed in one’s personal responsibilities is one of the main types of subjective guilt (内疚) in China. It is usually aroused in relation to one’s own abilities and it is experienced with respect to things that one does, and not the way one is. For example, guilt may arise when one could fulfil an obligation, but does not do so because of lack of time, tools or effort. A group member may think s/he has an obligation to protect the in-group, so guilt for the in-group emerges if this obligation is not carried out when the in-group is threatened. Furthermore, the more interdependent individuals feel with others in their group, the more guilt should be triggered when the group is threatened, especially in family or friendship groups (Lickel, Schmader, Curtis, Scarnier, & Ames, Reference Lickel, Schmader, Curtis, Scarnier and Ames2005; Schmader & Lickel, Reference Schmader and Lickel2006). Given the high degree of Chinese identity observed in the present study, it makes sense that our participants reported guilt under the symbolic threat condition.
If one discovers shame (羞愧) as a negative aspect of oneself, it raises thoughts about how to improve or change to be better in the future. The main cause of shame is the violation of a self-expectation that results in harming others. If a symbolic threat elicits a shame response, it should produce an automatic and involuntary emotional reaction that is accompanied by physiological and behavioral responses designed to address symbolic threat. Symbolic threat in the present study probably reminded participants that their in-group had a characteristic that was worse than that of the out-group, which might have made them feel worse than a member of a threatening out-group. Therefore, they might have been ashamed that they were not as good a group member as they should be. This feeling also includes the perception that one is not performing well and is harming the in-group and other in-group members.
Loss of face (丢脸) is a special negative self-conscious emotion in Chinese culture. Face, or lian, is a social product that refers to one’s dignity, self-respect, feeling of social concern and the ability to fulfill social obligations in front of other people (Bedford, Reference Bedford2004). The depth of this emotion is relative to the extent to which one believes that face/lian is valuable. Importantly, loss of reputation or standing in the eyes of other people is the central issue with loss of face. As people are motivated to have a good opinion of their group, symbolic threat should damage the reputation of the group and the group member, which might be the reason why participants felt loss of face in the symbolic threat condition.
Previous studies have mostly focused on the negative self-conscious emotions in perpetrator groups. The current study demonstrated that members of a victimized group also experience self-conscious emotions when threatened. It is important to note that our experiments studied symbolic group threat, so we do not know whether negative self-conscious emotions would be elicited by individual symbolic threats. Furthermore, positive self-conscious emotions were not measured in the present studies, so future research would benefit from exploring the effect of symbolic threat on positive self-conscious emotions. Future research should also focus on the role of identification and public exposure on the experience of negative self-conscious emotions in the context of intergroup threat. Previous research found in-group identification was an important moderator of the experience of vicarious shame and guilt (Lickel, Schmader, & Spanovic, Reference Lickel, Schmader, Spanovic, Tracy, Robins and Tangney2007). However, our research could not assess the effect of group identification on negative self-conscious emotions, as all the participants had the same level of identification with the in-group. However, not everyone is equally likely to experience feelings of negative conscious emotions when faced with negative information about their group’s past, according to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Worchel and Austin1986). It would be worthwhile for future research to study participants with different levels of group identification in a symbolic threat condition.
Conclusions
In summary, the present study provides evidence that negative self-conscious emotions can be affected by symbolic intergroup threat within the context of a collectivist culture. These results provide support for the notion that symbolic intergroup threat can, indeed, lead to not only basic emotions but also lead to self-conscious emotions.
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.3
Acknowledgements
We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Author contributions
YC, LL, YZ, and OY designed the study, YC and LL conducted the data analysis, and YC and YZ wrote the paper. All the authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Conflict of interest
None.
Data accessibility
The datasets analyzed for this research can be found in the electronic supplementary material.
Funding
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31371055), the Major Project for Key Research Institutes of Humanities and Social Science by the Ministry of Education (16JJD190007), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SWU1809360), and the Postgraduate Research Innovation Project of Chongqing (CYB18110).
Open access
