The target article by Menninghaus et al. provides a novel and intuitively compelling account of why people seek out and enjoy art which elicits negative emotions in the perceiver. This seemingly counter-hedonic behavior (with pro-hedonic consequences) certainly deserves a theoretical explanation. In this commentary, I propose an additional dimension to the Distancing-Embracing model which is not considered by the authors, specifically, that there is a relational/prosocial dimension to the enjoyment of negative emotion in art reception.
There is now an emerging body of work illustrating that negative emotional experiences provide a potent trigger for people to become more relational/prosocial in their orientation toward others. Anthropologists have long noted that many cultures around the world ritualize painful practices, suggesting that they do so to promote social cohesion (Durkheim 1912/Reference Durkheim1995; Whitehouse Reference Whitehouse1996). Incidental evidence for this effect of shared negativity is also evident in accounts of soldiers becoming bonded together through the trauma of war (Whitehouse et al. Reference Whitehouse, McQuinn, Buhrmester and Swann2014) or increased prosocial behavior in response to catastrophic events (Penner et al. Reference Penner, Brannick, Webb and Connell2005).
More direct evidence is emerging. For instance, Xygalatas et al. (Reference Xygalatas, Mitkidis, Fischer, Reddish, Skewes, Geertz, Roepstorff and Bulbulia2013) found that participants in the kavadi, practiced during the Thaipusam festival in Mauritius, engaged in more prosocial behavior when they had endured greater levels of pain. Building on this work, Bastian et al. (Reference Bastian, Jetten and Ferris2014a) found that even mildly painful experiences (e.g., cold-presser task, leg squats, chili consumption), when shared within a novel group, fostered perceptions of bonding and trust within the group and increased cooperative decision making in an economic game. A similar increase in prosocial behavior (e.g., trust and cooperation) was observed when male participants were exposed to social stress (von Dawans et al. Reference von Dawans, Fischacher, Kirschbaum, Fehr and Heinrichs2012).
The evidence indicates that negative experiences can lead to an increase in affiliative behavior towards others, perhaps especially when these are shared (see also Bastian et al. Reference Bastian, Jetten, Hornsey and Leknes2014b). Although this work suggests a functional account – tending and befriending others under conditions of stress is an effective way of coping (Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung and Updegraff2000) – it also highlights a source of enjoyment. People like to feel connected to others, and sharing the experience of negative emotion arising from art may also offer an avenue through which people can build positive and enjoyable social bonds.
Importantly, however, sharing negative emotional responses to art may go further in producing increased pleasure/enjoyment. Evidence suggests that sharing an experience with others amplifies both the pleasantness and unpleasantness of that experience (Boothby et al. Reference Boothby, Clark and Bargh2014). Negative emotions in art, therefore, may not only directly increase the intensity of the experience through capturing attentional resources, but also through building social bonds with others, and this social bonding in turn increases the intensity of the art experience itself.
This social dimension of negative emotions in art may be apparent even when other observers are not present. Negative emotional responses to art may also increase a sense of connectedness that people feel to the artist themselves. Immersing oneself in an artist's impression of the world involves engaging with the artist's intentions and perspectives. Negative emotions should, therefore, increase feelings of affiliation towards the artist and a desire to “connect” with their motivations and perceptions.
The relational/prosocial dimension fits within the structure of the Distancing-Embracing model proposed by the authors. Feeling that a particular negative emotional experience is shared would act as a distancing factor, whereby the social nature of the encounter provides a buffer for negative and emotionally challenging content. Indeed, there is an abundance of evidence to show that social support buffers the impact of negative events such as physical pain (e.g., Brown et al. Reference Brown, Sheffield, Leary and Robinson2003). Increased affiliation in response to negative emotion in art should reinforce a sense of personal safety, especially when social resources are immediately available (e.g., watching a thriller with friends). This, in turn, should facilitate distancing.
In addition to distancing effects, the relational/prosocial dimension also highlights avenues through which people may embrace art. As reviewed above, affiliative motives which arise in response to negative experiences are likely to contribute to a sense that an experience is being shared, and in turn, this amplifies that experience. Furthermore, because negative emotions also increase a motivation to “connect” with (or embrace) the artist themselves, the artwork is likely to become more significant to the perceiver. Together, these two affiliative motivations, which are triggered by negative emotion, serve to make the reception of an artwork more emotional, more intense, more interesting, and ultimately more rewarding.
Although beyond the scope of the Distancing-Embracing model, a relational/prosocial dimension also suggests that other antecedent social factors such as extroversion and attachment styles may moderate the enjoyment that people derive from negative emotions in art. Furthermore, the current analysis suggests that functional benefits associated with negative emotion in art may extend beyond well-being effects (referred to in the target article) to social effects, suggesting that as with rituals, negative emotions in art reception may play a role in promoting social cohesion.
The target article by Menninghaus et al. provides a novel and intuitively compelling account of why people seek out and enjoy art which elicits negative emotions in the perceiver. This seemingly counter-hedonic behavior (with pro-hedonic consequences) certainly deserves a theoretical explanation. In this commentary, I propose an additional dimension to the Distancing-Embracing model which is not considered by the authors, specifically, that there is a relational/prosocial dimension to the enjoyment of negative emotion in art reception.
There is now an emerging body of work illustrating that negative emotional experiences provide a potent trigger for people to become more relational/prosocial in their orientation toward others. Anthropologists have long noted that many cultures around the world ritualize painful practices, suggesting that they do so to promote social cohesion (Durkheim 1912/Reference Durkheim1995; Whitehouse Reference Whitehouse1996). Incidental evidence for this effect of shared negativity is also evident in accounts of soldiers becoming bonded together through the trauma of war (Whitehouse et al. Reference Whitehouse, McQuinn, Buhrmester and Swann2014) or increased prosocial behavior in response to catastrophic events (Penner et al. Reference Penner, Brannick, Webb and Connell2005).
More direct evidence is emerging. For instance, Xygalatas et al. (Reference Xygalatas, Mitkidis, Fischer, Reddish, Skewes, Geertz, Roepstorff and Bulbulia2013) found that participants in the kavadi, practiced during the Thaipusam festival in Mauritius, engaged in more prosocial behavior when they had endured greater levels of pain. Building on this work, Bastian et al. (Reference Bastian, Jetten and Ferris2014a) found that even mildly painful experiences (e.g., cold-presser task, leg squats, chili consumption), when shared within a novel group, fostered perceptions of bonding and trust within the group and increased cooperative decision making in an economic game. A similar increase in prosocial behavior (e.g., trust and cooperation) was observed when male participants were exposed to social stress (von Dawans et al. Reference von Dawans, Fischacher, Kirschbaum, Fehr and Heinrichs2012).
The evidence indicates that negative experiences can lead to an increase in affiliative behavior towards others, perhaps especially when these are shared (see also Bastian et al. Reference Bastian, Jetten, Hornsey and Leknes2014b). Although this work suggests a functional account – tending and befriending others under conditions of stress is an effective way of coping (Taylor et al. Reference Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung and Updegraff2000) – it also highlights a source of enjoyment. People like to feel connected to others, and sharing the experience of negative emotion arising from art may also offer an avenue through which people can build positive and enjoyable social bonds.
Importantly, however, sharing negative emotional responses to art may go further in producing increased pleasure/enjoyment. Evidence suggests that sharing an experience with others amplifies both the pleasantness and unpleasantness of that experience (Boothby et al. Reference Boothby, Clark and Bargh2014). Negative emotions in art, therefore, may not only directly increase the intensity of the experience through capturing attentional resources, but also through building social bonds with others, and this social bonding in turn increases the intensity of the art experience itself.
This social dimension of negative emotions in art may be apparent even when other observers are not present. Negative emotional responses to art may also increase a sense of connectedness that people feel to the artist themselves. Immersing oneself in an artist's impression of the world involves engaging with the artist's intentions and perspectives. Negative emotions should, therefore, increase feelings of affiliation towards the artist and a desire to “connect” with their motivations and perceptions.
The relational/prosocial dimension fits within the structure of the Distancing-Embracing model proposed by the authors. Feeling that a particular negative emotional experience is shared would act as a distancing factor, whereby the social nature of the encounter provides a buffer for negative and emotionally challenging content. Indeed, there is an abundance of evidence to show that social support buffers the impact of negative events such as physical pain (e.g., Brown et al. Reference Brown, Sheffield, Leary and Robinson2003). Increased affiliation in response to negative emotion in art should reinforce a sense of personal safety, especially when social resources are immediately available (e.g., watching a thriller with friends). This, in turn, should facilitate distancing.
In addition to distancing effects, the relational/prosocial dimension also highlights avenues through which people may embrace art. As reviewed above, affiliative motives which arise in response to negative experiences are likely to contribute to a sense that an experience is being shared, and in turn, this amplifies that experience. Furthermore, because negative emotions also increase a motivation to “connect” with (or embrace) the artist themselves, the artwork is likely to become more significant to the perceiver. Together, these two affiliative motivations, which are triggered by negative emotion, serve to make the reception of an artwork more emotional, more intense, more interesting, and ultimately more rewarding.
Although beyond the scope of the Distancing-Embracing model, a relational/prosocial dimension also suggests that other antecedent social factors such as extroversion and attachment styles may moderate the enjoyment that people derive from negative emotions in art. Furthermore, the current analysis suggests that functional benefits associated with negative emotion in art may extend beyond well-being effects (referred to in the target article) to social effects, suggesting that as with rituals, negative emotions in art reception may play a role in promoting social cohesion.