Psychological distance and emotional experience: what you see is what you get.

Recent research suggests that perceiving negative emotion-eliciting scenes approaching intensifies the associated felt emotion, while perceiving emotion-eliciting scenes receding weakens the associated felt emotion (Muhlberger, Neumann, Wieser, & Pauli, 2008). In the present studies, we sought to extend these findings by examining the effects of imagining rather than perceiving such changes to negative emotion-eliciting scenes. Across three studies, we found that negative scenes generally elicited less negative responses and lower levels of arousal when imagined moving away from participants and shrinking, and more negative responses and higher levels of arousal when imagined moving toward participants and growing, as compared to the responses elicited by negative scenes when imagined unchanged. Patterns in responses to neutral scenes undergoing the same imagined transformations were similar on ratings of emotional arousal, but differed on valence-generally eliciting greater positivity when imagined moving toward participants and growing, and less positivity when imagined moving away from participants and shrinking. Moreover, for these effects to emerge, participants reported it necessary to explicitly imagine scenes moving closer or farther. These findings have implications for emotion regulation, and suggest that imagined spatial distance plays a role in mental representations of emotionally salient events.

[1]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  The case for mental imagery , 2006 .

[2]  P. Lang International Affective Picture System (IAPS) : Technical Manual and Affective Ratings , 1995 .

[3]  K. Fujita,et al.  Influencing Attitudes Toward Near and Distant Objects. , 2008, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[4]  Roland Neumann,et al.  The impact of changes in spatial distance on emotional responses. , 2008, Emotion.

[5]  Y. Trope,et al.  The Psychology of Transcending the Here and Now , 2008, Science.

[6]  Maurizio Codispoti,et al.  Fuzzy picture processing: effects of size reduction and blurring on emotional processing. , 2008, Emotion.

[7]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[8]  D. Marlowe,et al.  A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. , 1960, Journal of consulting psychology.

[9]  G. Clore,et al.  Do Approach-Avoidance Actions Create Attitudes? , 2006, Psychological science.

[10]  Mark S. Cohen,et al.  Changes in cortical activity during mental rotation. A mapping study using functional MRI. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[11]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[12]  J. Gross,et al.  The cognitive control of emotion , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  A. Markman,et al.  Constraining Theories of Embodied Cognition , 2005, Psychological science.

[14]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- Tin Chen, Bargh / Consequences of Automatic Evaluation Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus , 2022 .

[15]  J. Bargh,et al.  Keeping One's Distance , 2008, Psychological science.

[16]  Ethan Kross,et al.  Enhancing the Pace of Recovery , 2008, Psychological science.

[17]  F. Strack,et al.  Approach and avoidance: the influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  W. Mischel,et al.  When Asking “Why” Does Not Hurt Distinguishing Rumination From Reflective Processing of Negative Emotions , 2005, Psychological science.

[19]  J. Gross The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review , 1998 .

[20]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Rudimentary determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.