- Email: [email protected]
Emotional arousal and affiliation
JOURNAL
OF
EXPERIMENTAL
Emotional
SOCIAL
9, 591-005
PSYCHOLOGY
Arousal YONA Tel-A&v
and
( 1973)
Affiliation1
TEICHMAN University
Schachter’s ( 1959) emotional comparison theory was criticized by Sarnoff and Zimbardo ( 1901)) who demonstrated that there are certain kinds of emotional arousal in which isolation is preferred. The generality of the theory was restricted and the direction of affiliative behaviors in different emotional-arousal conditions was questioned. In an attempt to reconcile the opposing findings, affiliative reactions to general and specific emotional arousal were compared. General arousal, anxiety state, was experimentally induced by confronting subjects with unspecified and cognitively unclear threat which allowed undetermined modes of personal interpretations. Specific arousal was induced by replicating Samoff and Zincbardo’s experimental procedures. As predicted, general arousal in creased affiliation while specific arousal decreased it. Birth order failed to interact significantly with any variables, and did not affect affiliation. Based on present and previous findings, some generalizations about emotional comparison and affiliation were offered, and problems of studying underlying motivations for affiliation were discussed.
Schachter’s ( 1959) emotional comparison theory was criticized by Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961). They proposed that since Schachter studied affiliative reactions only in fear situations, generalization about emotional comparison was questionable. Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) designed an experiment to test affiliative behavior in a different state of arousal which was identified as “oral anxiety.” As hypothesized, their “anxious” subjects manifested a preference for isolation while fearful subjects (threatened with shock) continued to prefer affiliation. Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) d emonstrated that there may be arousal conditions which would lead people to prefer isolation rather tharr ’ Data fulfillment Columbia, Shimkunas. Psychology, Copyright All rights
reported in this study are taken from a dissertation submitted in partial of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the University of hlissouri, MO. The author expresses her thanks to her advisor, Algimantas ?vf. Requests for reprints should be sent to Y. Teichman, I)epartment of Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. @ 1973 by Academic Press, of reproduction in any form
591 Inc. reserved.
592
YONA
TEICHMAN
affiliation. However, it appears that the general problem, the relationship between anxiety and affiliation, remained unsolved. The fact that Schachter studied reactions to fear is obvious, but there is difficulty in considering the situation in the Sarnoff and Zimbardo study as representing reactions to anxiety. The situation in which the subjects in this experiment found themselves was highly specific (in their discussion, the authors are aware of this fact), and caused feelings of embarrassment and fear from social ridicule (Bramel, 1969; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Walters & Parke, 1964). Both studies, thus, singled out different affiliative reactions to different types of specific emotional arousal. Affiliative reaction to general arousal has yet to be investigated. The present study aimed to test social comparison processes in a general emotional-arousal situation, representing anxiety. On the basis of Cattell (1966), Freud (1936), and Spielberger (1966), anxiety was conceived as a generalized state of arousal, recognized by the individual and identified by unpleasant feelings and apprehension. Such arousal may be caused by objective or nonobjective threats, but even when aroused by an objective threat it represents subjective contents and is accompanied by cognitive unclarity. The arousal state influences physiological and psychological functions, subjective feelings and overt behavior. Cattell, and later Spielberger, differentiated between two kinds of anxiety-a transitory state of anxiety (A-State) and anxiety as a personality trait (A-Trait), which is the individual’s proneness for anxiety. The relationship between the two kinds of anxiety is believed to be as between kinetic and potential energy. A person with a high A-Trait is more prone than the one with low A-Trait to experience anxiety in a stressful situation. The differentiation between the two kinds of anxiety is important in studying anxiety and its correlates. III the present study subjects were matched on A-Trait, and the arousal is identified as AState. In order to answer Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s (1961) question regarding the relationship between anxiety and affiliation, an arousal situation was devised which corresponds to the above conception of anxiety. Such a situation should include two main elements-inner personal threat, and uncertainty. Contrary to Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s reasoning, the objectively undefined threat and the uncertainty associated with it are elements which should enhance affiliative tendencies and search for social comparison. It was assumed that individuals (especially males) who would be threatened with a prospective self-disclosure would find themselves under an appropriate kind of arousal. Self-disclosure is a threatening
EMOTIONAL
I. Subjects lated to 2. Subjects manifest jects in aroused
AHO’CTSAL
AXD
AFFILIATIOS
+593
exposed to a new, uncl~n~. hind nmbiguons sitwtioll I-C’themselves will cxpt~ricnw anxiety ( .A-State ), in a general emotional aror~sal state ( A-Stnte) lvill more often and stronger need for afFjli:,tion tlwl) ,5111)a specific kind of elnotional ~~rouwl state. or t!ian IIOILsubjects.
594
YONA
TEICHMAN
3. Social comparison will be chosen as a means for clarification and uncertainty reduction. 4. Isolation will be chosen to avoid social rejection and ridicule. METHOD Design A 2 x 2 design was used in which two levels of two different kinds of anxiety were experimentally aroused-general and specific anxiety, both with high and low levels. The specific arousal was a very close replication of the Samoff and Zimbardo ( 1961) manipulation of anxiety, and will be referred to as an embarrassment condition. The general arousal condition followed the previously described criteria. The dependent variable was direction and intensity of social affiliation. The subjects indicated their preference for waiting alone or with others, and the intensity of this preference. Subjects Eighty undergraduate male students, enrolled in introductory courses in psychology They participated in the experiat the University of Missouri, served as subjects. ment for credit. Actually 82 subjects were run, but two were eliminated from the final data analysis. One of those had a background in electrical engineering and was suspicious of the contrived apparatus; the other could not follow the explanation and requirements. Subjects were assigned to groups on the basis of matching on their predisposition for anxiety (Trait anxiety) and birth order. There were 20 subjects in each group. instruments Anxiety. Subjects’ predisposition for anxiety and the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation were measured by Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene’s ( 19698) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The effectiveness of inducing emotional arousal was also checked by asking the subjects to indicate their degree of upset, concern, and feelings of ill at ease on a scale with a range of O-100. Embawassment. On a second O-100 scale, subjects were asked to indicate their feelings of embarrassment, shame, or being absurd. This measurement aimed to differentiate between the two emotional-arousal conditions (high general anxiety and high specific anxiety or embarrassment). Need for affiliation. Need for affiliation was measured by having the subjects state whether they preferred to spend an anticipated waiting period alone or in the company of other subjects. The order of presentation of these two alternatives was randomized. Half of the subjects were given questionnaires which had the “alone” possibility first, and the “together” possibility second; for the other half of the subjects, the order was reversed. The strength of preference was assessed on a scale with a O-100 range. Reasons for afiliation or isohtion. After indicating their choice and intensity of preference, subjects answered a multiple-choice question. They had to choose the most appropriate reason out of three presented possibilities to explain their choice, In addition, subjects could indicate further explanations about their choice. Subjects who chose to wait together were presented with three of the choices offered by
EMOTIONAL
AROUSAL
AND
AFFILIATIOS
s95
Zimbardo and Formica (1963): motivation for social comparison, search for au\ic,t> reduction, and social curiosity. The multiple-choice question for the subjects who had chosen to wait alon<% \\ab first suggested in the present study. The main differentiation which was looked fol was between feelings of inappropriateness and cmharrassmc‘nt ~~~11s rejection ot social comparison or lack of need for anxiety reduction. Procedure 250 male students took the S’Ml. .l‘ht A few weeks before the experiment, scales were administered during a psychology lab session. The presentation \WS neutral; the scales were presented as a screening device for a possible participatiorl in a future experiment. Groups which had imminent course examinations or (Luiz/.tB\ were excluded. Information about birth order was also obtained. Usiug the nwdian. subjects were divided into high trait anxiety ( HTA) and lolv trait anxiety i LTA) The groups were matched according to A-Trait and birth order. IU groups. each group of 20 subjects, five were HTA, firstborn or only children; five were llT.%. other birth order; five were LTA, firstborn or only children: and five \YWX’ J-Th, other birth order. The experiment was introduced to all subjects as an experiment in physiological psychology, but descriptions varied depending an the particular manipuIaticn>. TIIC subjects sat separately, isolated from each other. Four to six subjects \vere run at a time. Instructions and explanations were presented individually, through earphones, by a male speaker. He was identified as “a professor of physiological psychology from the Department of Psychology at the University of Missouri.” The snme pt~so~~ presented the experiment to all the groups. In front of them the subjects saw a11 apparatus equipped with electrodes, watches, lights, etc. The apparatus \vas descrihctl differently according to the manipulation. During the manipulation subjects were asked to answer questions in a l~~)klet of questionnaires, which they received at the beginning of the experimmt. ‘I%<, questionnaires measured A-State after the manipulation, feelings of emharassment. direction, and intensity of affiliation, and the reasons for the subjects‘ choice\. Honesty about feelings and sincere introspection were encouraged by introducing tht, subjects to the experimenter’s intention to check their feelings through physiologic:aI indices. In all four groups, the meaning of the anticipated waiting period lv:ts increased by performing a lottery which determined the order of participation. Subjects al\vay\ received numbers which indicated that they would be invited last. Thus, the antic-pated waiting period became more concrete and tlrr thision ahollt it IIIOB-C’ meaningful. High
General
Anxiety
The experiment was presented as an experiment in “the physiological aspects (of emotions.” Subjects were led to believe that they would be exposed to an c~strem~~ self-disclosure situation with fsvo complete strangers. (Following Jourarcl’s ( 1964 1 findings with male subjects, this was expected to be an anxiety-arousing situation. ) The threat for self-disclosure was further strengthened with a strong indication that the experimenters, on the basis of previous testing (STAI), were informed aboiit personal characteristics of each subject. It was made clear that these things wel(d of a negative character. The source of the information \vas presented as al)s~,lntt~i>
596
PONA
TEICHMAN
trustworthy. An additional anxiety-creating factor was the mode of PresentatiCnl. The voice which presented the instructions was authoritative, impersonal, and occasionally degrading (“We shall hook you up to the machine”). A Inale and a fema\c, wearing white coats, were present in the laboratory. While and instructions, the male operated the the subjects listen-d to the explanation creating the impression that machine and manipulated the electrodes and lights, he was preparing it for immediate use. Subjects heard a detailed and elaborated erplanation about the nature of what The main threatening themes were those of the would be expected from them. subjects’ personal inadequacies which presumably were known to the experimenters: ‘C on the self-evaluation test are interesting, but they indicate . . . Your profiles that you must experience some difficulties in coping with psychological problems. We also have a pretty good idea what these problems are, but we want to test our invasion of privacy by means predictions experimentally . . ,” and a prospective of self-disclosure: “. . You will be expected to bring up those personal topics that you consider to be most personal and relate to them. This will require that YOU deal with the kind of material that people usually keep secret, are reluctant to discuss, and are apprehensive to admit . . .” the subjects were asked to describe their present Following these instructions, feelings on the three scales (A-State, O-100 Anxiety rating scale, and 0-100 Embarrassment rating scale). Subjects were encouraged to describe their feelings sincerely by warning them that these descriptions would be rechecked by obtaining involuntary physiological indices: “. . . We shall compare your emotional description to the description obtained from the machine. I hope that you will describe your present feeIings honsstly and accurately. This wiI1 heIp to avoid clarifications and extensive inquiry into the matter . .” As in previous studies, the shortage of instruments was used as a pretext for making the subjects choose their waiting condition, to indicate the intensity of their preference, and the rea’;on for their choice. Items were grouped on separate pages according to their content, pages were identified by numbers and colors, and subjects were directed to consider each item with an appropriate explanation. The same instructions for answering the items ill the booklet were repeated in all groups. After the collection of the booklets, the experiment and the procedures were explained to the subjects. Low
General
Anxiely
The subjects were led to believe that they were going to participate in a large experiment in physiological psychology which deals with “the normal pl~ysiological reaction in a conversation situation.” They were told that they had been chosen to help in establishing baseline measurements for the whole experiment. The fact that they represented the norm was particularly stressed. The experiment was presented in a matter-of-fact, yet sympathetic, way. The possibility of self-disclosure or discussion of personal themes was clearly ruled out and the conversation was simplified and structured by telling the subjects that they would discuss “predetermined topics, which were pretested, and we know that students enjoy discussing them.” Subjects were asked to describe their feelings in the experimental situation under the pretext that “. from our past experience with the machine, we learned that it is very important to know the subjects’ feelings about the experiment before starting it.”
EMOTIONAL
Etfectivencss
AROUSAL
of the Experimental
ASD
AFFILIATIOS
.597
Maniplution
The experimental situation in this study involved arousal of differcllt kinds of anxiety. Emotional arousal depends on the kind of situation tllc, individual fnces, bnt it also depends 011 the individual’s past experiences ant1 predispositions for hecoming aroused. By m;ltching the gyo~lps 01~ the A-Trait varial,le-predispositio~l for anxiet!*---the, possibility of clif
598
YONA
MEAN A-STATE Kind and level of arousal High arousal Anxiety Embarrassment Low arousal Anxiety Embarrassment
a All p values ***p < .OOl.
TEICHMAN
TABLE 1 SCORES OF A-TRAIT AND MEAN COMPARISONS OF BEFORE AND AFTER EXPERIMENTAL TREATMWNT~ 2 A-Trait before
2F A-State before
3 A-State after
t: A-State before-after
36.25 36.70
35.25 34.75
43.15 42.45
4.57*** 7.07***
35.60 37.20 F = 0.204 df = 3/76 p - ns.
37.50 37.85 F = 0.754 df = 3/76 p - n.s.
35.85 38.50 F = 4.01 df = 3/76 p < .05
.69 .42
are for two-tailed
tests.
ferent levels of arousal due to individual differences, was ruled out. According to Spielberger’s theory about the relationship between ATrait and A-State, this matching should have led to a homogeneous level of A-State in the different groups. Indeed, this expectation proved to be true. Namely, before the experiment the groups did not differ significantly on their predisposition for anxiety, nor on their initial level of anxiety in neutral situations (A-State-I). Mean comparisons of A-Trait and A-State, before the experiment, are presented in Table 1. Now, we may proceed and check whether the experimental treatments provided two high and two low arousal conditions, and whether the two high arousal conditions differed in kind. The arousal level was checked by two indices: the comparison of A-State before and after the experimental treatment, and subjects’ introspective rating of their feelings of anxiety, emotional upset, concern, and ill-at-ease on a scale with a range of O-100. The before and after comparison is presented in Table 1 and the introspective ratings of feelings is presented in Table 2. The results in Tables 1 and 2 indicate that the treatments in this experiment succeeded to differentiate two levels of arousal. Table 1 indicates that the two high arousal conditions became significantly more aroused than in the initial stage, while in the two low arousal conditions the initial arousal level did not change significantly. Table 2 indicates that the two high arousal conditions reported significantly higher level of arousal than the two low arousal conditions. This is true both for the anxiety scale and the second administration of the A-State questionnaire (A-State-II). Further, Table 2 shows that the two high arousal conditions did not differ significantly in their arousal level, and that
EMOTIONAL
Instjnnnent
Kind
AROUSAL
AND
of arousal
599
AFFILIATION
High
l>OW
f
------
1=
A-State
Anxiety Embarrassment
II
Embarrassment,
scale
Anxiet,y Embarrassment
,ss
4::. 1-i 32 4.5 t.“s IS -.. ;)a 35.65 t=:;7s***
f =
.wi
25. S.i :3s. 50 I = .!I0 7 .,?I 7 (15 I= IS
3. oo*** 1 .ci7* ‘9x7*** 10. IO*** --
0 All p values *p = .lO **p < .05 ***p < .Ol.
are for P-tailed
tests.
the two low arousal conditions also did not differ significantly in it. Thus, differences obtained in the dependent variable can be attributed to different kinds of arousal rather than to different levels of arousal. The last thing to be evaluated before the analysis of the results is whether two different emotions are to be considered. It was suggested that the emotion aroused by Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) represents embarrassment and fear from social rejection. In order to check this, after each treatment subjects were asked to indicate how embarrassed. ashamed, or absurd they felt. The means of the embarrassment scores are presented in the last row of Table 2, and it is evident that what is referred to as an embarrassment arousal situation has the highest rmbarrassment score. In a one-way analysis of variance the difference among the embarrassment scores in the four groups proved to be significant beyond the .Ol level (F( 3,76) = 10.77). A closer look at the embarrassment means indicates that while the two arousal conditions do not differ significantly. the two high arousal conditions do. These results indicate that the experimental manipulation succeeded in differentiating two different kinds of emotional arousal: one represents an anxiety state while the other one represents a state of arousal in which feelings of embarrassment arc> strongly identified. Effects
of Anxiety
and Embarrassment
on Social Affiliation
The results relevant to the hypothesis about the differential influence of anxiety and embarrassment on social affiliation are presented in Table 3. For each treatment, the mean intensity of desire to affiliate.
600
YONA
TEICHMAN
TABLl? BETWEBN
THJC REL.~TIONSHIP EMOTIONAL
AROUSAL
3 DIFFISRENT TYPES AND AFFILIATION
OF
Subject’s Emotion and level of arousal
Mean affiliation strengtha
choice
Together
Alone
1s 15
2 5
12 17
6 5
___ Anxiet,y High Low Embarrassment High Low
Q Isolation
intensity
32.00 15.00 3.70 IS.00 Interaction (emotion S level): p < .05, F = 4.08, df = l/72 score subtracted
from
afiliation
intensity
score.
and the subject’s choice regarding his waiting condition, are presented. The hypothesis about an interaction between kind and level of arousal was clearly supported by the data. The interaction obtained from an analysis of variance is F( 1,72) = 4.08. This interaction is significant beyond the .05 level, and it indicates that in a high anxiety situation, intensity of affiliation increases, while in a high embarrassment situation affiliation decreases. When the means obtained in the two high arousal groups were compared, the result was highly significant (t = 3.373, p < .OOS). The two low arousal groups did not differ significantly (t = 34). When the two high arousal groups were compared with their control groups differences approached significance. The t obtained for the two anxiety conditions was 1.76, p < .lO (e-tailed), and the t obtained for the two-embarrassment conditions was 1.91, p < .lO (2-tailed). The difference between the embarrassment groups is a replication of the Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) results. The analysis of the kind of choices in the different groups provides additional evidence in the same direction. An overall comparison by x2 did not prove to be significant (x0- = 6.02). However, when the two high arousal groups were compared, the result was significant (x2( 1) = 4.80, p < .05). Subjects who experienced high embarrassment rejected more significantly the prospective possibility of associating with others than subjects who experienced high anxiety, Reasons Given for Affiliation
and Isolation
The distribution of choices according to the different reasons in the four groups is presented in Table 4.
EMOTIO1LAL
AROUSAL
AXD
AFFILI.%TIOX
601
The analysis of reasons given by subjects to explain their choice tlocs not provide much information. The small frequencies do not allow an adequate statistical analysis of the data. However. when wc look at the pattern of choices in the high anxiety group, WC see that the larger number of subjects (50%) indicated a need for anxiety reduction. “the mere presence of others is comforting and reduces worry.” The percentage of subjects who indicated the same need in the low embarrassment condition is, however, even higher (58.8%). Apparently, subjects ill this group felt a remarkable amount of discomfort. This reasniling ma\’ be supported by the fact that subjects in this group 011 one of the arousal comparisons differed only slightly in their arousal level from their corresponding arousal condition group. In Table 2. the last colunn~, thci arousal as indicated on L4-State II measurement bctwecn the t\vo-embarrassment conditions were compared (t = 1.67, I-, < .lO) . This higher arousal level may have contributed to the numwr subjrcts explained thrir choices in this group. Thus, when emotional arousal is experienced and people choose to affiliate, they explain their reaction ilr terms (I( anxiety reduction rather than looking for clarity. In the high embarrassment condition, S subjects indicated the preference to wait alone. The reasons they o&red to explaill their clwiw are i~t the line of the prediction of the fourth hypothesis. Subjects who chosc~ to wait alone did so mainly because they felt that they Inight appeal foolish or absurd. Six of the eight subjects chose the possibility whicll indicated fear from social rejection. The small frequencies in the two other categories were combined, and th? probability to obtain these. frequencies of choice were determined l)y the binomial test. Th(, probability for such distribution of choices is p = .ld. ,4lthough this prob. ability does not reach statistical significance. it nlny 1,~) concludf~(l that
602
YONA
TEICHMAN
choices in the specific embarrassment arousal condition were strongly determined by the anticipated social experiences in the waiting situation. Birth Order
and A#&tion
Although there were no predictions about the effects of ordinal position on affiliation, on the basis of findings obtained in previous studies, it was considered advisable to take this variable into account. The groups were matched on birth order and half of the subjects in each group were only or firstborn children. It is interesting to check whether this study replicates previous findings regarding this variable. A threeway analysis of variance revealed no significant difference and no specific interaction among birth order and kind or level or emotional arousal. According to these findings, birth order of male subjects does not seem to have any effect on social affiliation. DISCUSSION
The main issues investigated in this study were experimental procedures for arousing anxiety and the influence of such arousal on social affiliation. Further, theoretical suggestions were proposed and tested in order to offer a different explanation to Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s (1961) findings which excluded anxiety from Schachter’s (1959) emotional comparison theory. Most previous studies which tried to induce anxiety experimentally had a specific element in their treatment (Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961; Mandler & Watson, 1966; Lazarus & Opton, 1966; Schachter, 1959). In this study subjects were exposed to a situation which was strongly directed at the individual, yet new, vague, cognitively unclear, and allowed a wide range of individual interpretations. This kind of experience, which may be created experimentally, proved to be an effective device to induce anxiety, or more specifically-state anxiety (see Table 1) . Viewing affiliation as providing the individual with an opportunity for social comparison, and acquiring clarity about the self, it was predicted that new, ambiguous, and vague emotional states which do not disclose the individual’s specific conflicts would strengthen the wish to associate with others who are in the same situation. The purpose of such association would be emotional comparison and clarification of feelings. The hypothesis about the influence of an unspecified kind of anxiety on affiliation was clearly supported. Subjects who experienced this kind of arousal had a significantly stronger need to affiliate with other subjects (Table 3). These findings support previous reports which proposed that lack of cognitive clarity increases the preference to affiliate with others
EMOTIOXAL
AROUSAL
AND
AFFJLIATIOX
603
(Gerard, 1963; Gerard & Rabbie, 1961; Rabbie, 1963). However, as this study did not employ any physical threat, it demonstrated that emotional arousal which is due only to uncertainty about the self produces th( same affiliative reactions. These resuhs seem to contradict the findings reported by Sarnoff and Zimbardo ( 1961). but actually no contradiction is present. As proposed by Sarnoff and Zimbardo ( 1961) and replicated in this study, thele may be situations in which emotional comparison will be rejected. Yet this is not at all a generalization about all anxiety conditions; on the contrary. Sarnoff and Zimbardo indicate: “In view of the fact that our anxietyarousing stimulus was specifically desigiicd to tap only one kind of repressed motive, it of course remains an empirical question whethcl or not the evocation of other types of repressed motives also leads to social isolation (p. 362) .” Instead of evoking other specific reprcsscd motives, affiliative reactions to an unspecified kind of arousal rcpresenting anxiety were studied, and the results offer support for thcx emotiorral comparison theory. Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s ( 1961) findings about the affiliative reactions of subjects in a specific kind of arousal were replicated. Furthermore. ;m investigation of these subjects’ feelings and motivations revealed that they felt strongly embarrassed and absurd (Table 2), and chose isolation mainly in order to avoid exposure to social dc*valuation (Table 4 ). Although the last finding only approached significance ( p = .13 ). \\,hcu incorporated into the other findings relevant to this problem, it gains additional meaning. Thus, individuals who experience a specific kind of anxiety, which due to its specifity, may disclose concrete socialI): unaccepted themes about themselves to their prospective companions, prefer to avoid such company. It may be also suggested that the specifit); of the situation implied its emotional and situational clarity. This ;~s ~(~11 may reduce the affiliative tendency ( Latane & Wheeler. 1966). Following previous works (Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961; Zimbardo Kr Formica, 1963), subjects were asked to explain their waiting preference. The results accumulated until now, including those of the present study. indicate that subjects’ reports about their motivations for the “together” choice do not confirm clearly the emotional comparison theory. Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed; anxious subjects did not indicate that they had chosen to affiliate in order to reduce emotional unclarity. No significant pattern about subjects’ motivations for choosing “together” was detected for any one of the groups; the most preferred explanation pointed at anxiety reduction (Table 4). The introspective technique for studying the underlying moti\,ati(ms of affiliative behavior does not seem to provide clear results, One of the
604
YONA
TJZICHMAX
things that may improve it would be to study larger samples; this would provide reasonably large frequencies for each choice and would enable the formation of significant trends, if any. Another promising direction was suggested by Zimbardo and Formica ( 1963), and Darley and Aronson ( 1966). In these studies, subjects reflected their motivations by choosing prospective companions who represented different needs (usually emotional comparison vs anxiety reduction). This technique was found to support the emotional comparison theory, yet, as indicated by Darley and Aronson (1966), it also suffers from some limitations. In spite of the difficulties in determining the underlying motivations of affiliation, this problem has to be considered of primary importance and in need of further research. The fact that people, when emotionally aroused, generally choose to affiliate with others indicates that they are looking for social comparison, but does not prove it sufficiently. The study of motivations underlying the preference for isolation seems to be more promising. Although the results only approached significance they pointed out that the preference for solitude was guided by an avoidance pattern-avoidance of loss of esteem. This supports the interpretations which were ozered to the Sarnoff and Zimbardo findings by Bramel ( 1969), Cofer and Appley ( 1964)) and Walters and Parke ( 1964). The birth-order variable, which was carefully controlled in this study, did not prove to affect subjects’ affiliative tendencies. This is not surprising since the findings about the relationship among birth order, sex of subjects, and affiIiation are quite controversial. REFERENCES BRAMEL, U. Interpersonalattraction, hostility and perception. In J. Mills (Ed.), Experimental social psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Pp. 3-120. CATTELL, R. B. Anxiety and motivation: theory and crucial experiments. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety ancE behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Pp. 23-79. COFER, C. N., & APPLEY, M. H. Motiuation: theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1964. DARLEY, J. M., & AIIONSON, E. Self evaluation vs. direct anxiety reduction as determinants of the fear-affiliation relationship. Jownal of Experimentul Social Psychology, Supplement, 1966, 66-79. FREUD, S. The problem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936. GERARD, H. B. Emotional uncertainty and social comparison. Jo~rnul of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 568-573. GERARD, H. B., & RABBIE, J. Al. F’ear and social comparison. Journ& of Abnormul u& Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 586-592. JOURARQ S. M. The transpurent self. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1964. LATAPU‘E, B., & WHEELER, L. Emotionality and reactions to disaster. Journal of Edperimentaland Social Psychology,Supplement,1966, 95-102,
EMOTIONAL
R. S., & OPTON, theoretical formulations A&et!/ and behaior.
LAZARUS,
!X~AXDLER,
berger 2X8.
G.,
& WATSOS,
(Ed.),
Anxiety
AROUSAL
AXD
AFl”ILIATIOS
ms
E. M. The study of psychological strrss: a ~:uuIw~-> 01 and experimental findings. It1 C. D. SpiellwgeIi I-0. j1 New York: Academic PWSS. 1YMj. Pp. Z!5-26”. 1). Anxiety and intewnption c)f M~avior. Irz C. I). Spiciund bchacior. NC\\York: Acadeulic Prrs\. 1966. Pp. %i:i-
OF
EXPERIMENTAL
Emotional
SOCIAL
9, 591-005
PSYCHOLOGY
Arousal YONA Tel-A&v
and
( 1973)
Affiliation1
TEICHMAN University
Schachter’s ( 1959) emotional comparison theory was criticized by Sarnoff and Zimbardo ( 1901)) who demonstrated that there are certain kinds of emotional arousal in which isolation is preferred. The generality of the theory was restricted and the direction of affiliative behaviors in different emotional-arousal conditions was questioned. In an attempt to reconcile the opposing findings, affiliative reactions to general and specific emotional arousal were compared. General arousal, anxiety state, was experimentally induced by confronting subjects with unspecified and cognitively unclear threat which allowed undetermined modes of personal interpretations. Specific arousal was induced by replicating Samoff and Zincbardo’s experimental procedures. As predicted, general arousal in creased affiliation while specific arousal decreased it. Birth order failed to interact significantly with any variables, and did not affect affiliation. Based on present and previous findings, some generalizations about emotional comparison and affiliation were offered, and problems of studying underlying motivations for affiliation were discussed.
Schachter’s ( 1959) emotional comparison theory was criticized by Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961). They proposed that since Schachter studied affiliative reactions only in fear situations, generalization about emotional comparison was questionable. Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) designed an experiment to test affiliative behavior in a different state of arousal which was identified as “oral anxiety.” As hypothesized, their “anxious” subjects manifested a preference for isolation while fearful subjects (threatened with shock) continued to prefer affiliation. Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) d emonstrated that there may be arousal conditions which would lead people to prefer isolation rather tharr ’ Data fulfillment Columbia, Shimkunas. Psychology, Copyright All rights
reported in this study are taken from a dissertation submitted in partial of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the University of hlissouri, MO. The author expresses her thanks to her advisor, Algimantas ?vf. Requests for reprints should be sent to Y. Teichman, I)epartment of Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. @ 1973 by Academic Press, of reproduction in any form
591 Inc. reserved.
592
YONA
TEICHMAN
affiliation. However, it appears that the general problem, the relationship between anxiety and affiliation, remained unsolved. The fact that Schachter studied reactions to fear is obvious, but there is difficulty in considering the situation in the Sarnoff and Zimbardo study as representing reactions to anxiety. The situation in which the subjects in this experiment found themselves was highly specific (in their discussion, the authors are aware of this fact), and caused feelings of embarrassment and fear from social ridicule (Bramel, 1969; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Walters & Parke, 1964). Both studies, thus, singled out different affiliative reactions to different types of specific emotional arousal. Affiliative reaction to general arousal has yet to be investigated. The present study aimed to test social comparison processes in a general emotional-arousal situation, representing anxiety. On the basis of Cattell (1966), Freud (1936), and Spielberger (1966), anxiety was conceived as a generalized state of arousal, recognized by the individual and identified by unpleasant feelings and apprehension. Such arousal may be caused by objective or nonobjective threats, but even when aroused by an objective threat it represents subjective contents and is accompanied by cognitive unclarity. The arousal state influences physiological and psychological functions, subjective feelings and overt behavior. Cattell, and later Spielberger, differentiated between two kinds of anxiety-a transitory state of anxiety (A-State) and anxiety as a personality trait (A-Trait), which is the individual’s proneness for anxiety. The relationship between the two kinds of anxiety is believed to be as between kinetic and potential energy. A person with a high A-Trait is more prone than the one with low A-Trait to experience anxiety in a stressful situation. The differentiation between the two kinds of anxiety is important in studying anxiety and its correlates. III the present study subjects were matched on A-Trait, and the arousal is identified as AState. In order to answer Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s (1961) question regarding the relationship between anxiety and affiliation, an arousal situation was devised which corresponds to the above conception of anxiety. Such a situation should include two main elements-inner personal threat, and uncertainty. Contrary to Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s reasoning, the objectively undefined threat and the uncertainty associated with it are elements which should enhance affiliative tendencies and search for social comparison. It was assumed that individuals (especially males) who would be threatened with a prospective self-disclosure would find themselves under an appropriate kind of arousal. Self-disclosure is a threatening
EMOTIONAL
I. Subjects lated to 2. Subjects manifest jects in aroused
AHO’CTSAL
AXD
AFFILIATIOS
+593
exposed to a new, uncl~n~. hind nmbiguons sitwtioll I-C’themselves will cxpt~ricnw anxiety ( .A-State ), in a general emotional aror~sal state ( A-Stnte) lvill more often and stronger need for afFjli:,tion tlwl) ,5111)a specific kind of elnotional ~~rouwl state. or t!ian IIOILsubjects.
594
YONA
TEICHMAN
3. Social comparison will be chosen as a means for clarification and uncertainty reduction. 4. Isolation will be chosen to avoid social rejection and ridicule. METHOD Design A 2 x 2 design was used in which two levels of two different kinds of anxiety were experimentally aroused-general and specific anxiety, both with high and low levels. The specific arousal was a very close replication of the Samoff and Zimbardo ( 1961) manipulation of anxiety, and will be referred to as an embarrassment condition. The general arousal condition followed the previously described criteria. The dependent variable was direction and intensity of social affiliation. The subjects indicated their preference for waiting alone or with others, and the intensity of this preference. Subjects Eighty undergraduate male students, enrolled in introductory courses in psychology They participated in the experiat the University of Missouri, served as subjects. ment for credit. Actually 82 subjects were run, but two were eliminated from the final data analysis. One of those had a background in electrical engineering and was suspicious of the contrived apparatus; the other could not follow the explanation and requirements. Subjects were assigned to groups on the basis of matching on their predisposition for anxiety (Trait anxiety) and birth order. There were 20 subjects in each group. instruments Anxiety. Subjects’ predisposition for anxiety and the effectiveness of the experimental manipulation were measured by Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene’s ( 19698) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The effectiveness of inducing emotional arousal was also checked by asking the subjects to indicate their degree of upset, concern, and feelings of ill at ease on a scale with a range of O-100. Embawassment. On a second O-100 scale, subjects were asked to indicate their feelings of embarrassment, shame, or being absurd. This measurement aimed to differentiate between the two emotional-arousal conditions (high general anxiety and high specific anxiety or embarrassment). Need for affiliation. Need for affiliation was measured by having the subjects state whether they preferred to spend an anticipated waiting period alone or in the company of other subjects. The order of presentation of these two alternatives was randomized. Half of the subjects were given questionnaires which had the “alone” possibility first, and the “together” possibility second; for the other half of the subjects, the order was reversed. The strength of preference was assessed on a scale with a O-100 range. Reasons for afiliation or isohtion. After indicating their choice and intensity of preference, subjects answered a multiple-choice question. They had to choose the most appropriate reason out of three presented possibilities to explain their choice, In addition, subjects could indicate further explanations about their choice. Subjects who chose to wait together were presented with three of the choices offered by
EMOTIONAL
AROUSAL
AND
AFFILIATIOS
s95
Zimbardo and Formica (1963): motivation for social comparison, search for au\ic,t> reduction, and social curiosity. The multiple-choice question for the subjects who had chosen to wait alon<% \\ab first suggested in the present study. The main differentiation which was looked fol was between feelings of inappropriateness and cmharrassmc‘nt ~~~11s rejection ot social comparison or lack of need for anxiety reduction. Procedure 250 male students took the S’Ml. .l‘ht A few weeks before the experiment, scales were administered during a psychology lab session. The presentation \WS neutral; the scales were presented as a screening device for a possible participatiorl in a future experiment. Groups which had imminent course examinations or (Luiz/.tB\ were excluded. Information about birth order was also obtained. Usiug the nwdian. subjects were divided into high trait anxiety ( HTA) and lolv trait anxiety i LTA) The groups were matched according to A-Trait and birth order. IU groups. each group of 20 subjects, five were HTA, firstborn or only children; five were llT.%. other birth order; five were LTA, firstborn or only children: and five \YWX’ J-Th, other birth order. The experiment was introduced to all subjects as an experiment in physiological psychology, but descriptions varied depending an the particular manipuIaticn>. TIIC subjects sat separately, isolated from each other. Four to six subjects \vere run at a time. Instructions and explanations were presented individually, through earphones, by a male speaker. He was identified as “a professor of physiological psychology from the Department of Psychology at the University of Missouri.” The snme pt~so~~ presented the experiment to all the groups. In front of them the subjects saw a11 apparatus equipped with electrodes, watches, lights, etc. The apparatus \vas descrihctl differently according to the manipulation. During the manipulation subjects were asked to answer questions in a l~~)klet of questionnaires, which they received at the beginning of the experimmt. ‘I%<, questionnaires measured A-State after the manipulation, feelings of emharassment. direction, and intensity of affiliation, and the reasons for the subjects‘ choice\. Honesty about feelings and sincere introspection were encouraged by introducing tht, subjects to the experimenter’s intention to check their feelings through physiologic:aI indices. In all four groups, the meaning of the anticipated waiting period lv:ts increased by performing a lottery which determined the order of participation. Subjects al\vay\ received numbers which indicated that they would be invited last. Thus, the antic-pated waiting period became more concrete and tlrr thision ahollt it IIIOB-C’ meaningful. High
General
Anxiety
The experiment was presented as an experiment in “the physiological aspects (of emotions.” Subjects were led to believe that they would be exposed to an c~strem~~ self-disclosure situation with fsvo complete strangers. (Following Jourarcl’s ( 1964 1 findings with male subjects, this was expected to be an anxiety-arousing situation. ) The threat for self-disclosure was further strengthened with a strong indication that the experimenters, on the basis of previous testing (STAI), were informed aboiit personal characteristics of each subject. It was made clear that these things wel(d of a negative character. The source of the information \vas presented as al)s~,lntt~i>
596
PONA
TEICHMAN
trustworthy. An additional anxiety-creating factor was the mode of PresentatiCnl. The voice which presented the instructions was authoritative, impersonal, and occasionally degrading (“We shall hook you up to the machine”). A Inale and a fema\c, wearing white coats, were present in the laboratory. While and instructions, the male operated the the subjects listen-d to the explanation creating the impression that machine and manipulated the electrodes and lights, he was preparing it for immediate use. Subjects heard a detailed and elaborated erplanation about the nature of what The main threatening themes were those of the would be expected from them. subjects’ personal inadequacies which presumably were known to the experimenters: ‘C on the self-evaluation test are interesting, but they indicate . . . Your profiles that you must experience some difficulties in coping with psychological problems. We also have a pretty good idea what these problems are, but we want to test our invasion of privacy by means predictions experimentally . . ,” and a prospective of self-disclosure: “. . You will be expected to bring up those personal topics that you consider to be most personal and relate to them. This will require that YOU deal with the kind of material that people usually keep secret, are reluctant to discuss, and are apprehensive to admit . . .” the subjects were asked to describe their present Following these instructions, feelings on the three scales (A-State, O-100 Anxiety rating scale, and 0-100 Embarrassment rating scale). Subjects were encouraged to describe their feelings sincerely by warning them that these descriptions would be rechecked by obtaining involuntary physiological indices: “. . . We shall compare your emotional description to the description obtained from the machine. I hope that you will describe your present feeIings honsstly and accurately. This wiI1 heIp to avoid clarifications and extensive inquiry into the matter . .” As in previous studies, the shortage of instruments was used as a pretext for making the subjects choose their waiting condition, to indicate the intensity of their preference, and the rea’;on for their choice. Items were grouped on separate pages according to their content, pages were identified by numbers and colors, and subjects were directed to consider each item with an appropriate explanation. The same instructions for answering the items ill the booklet were repeated in all groups. After the collection of the booklets, the experiment and the procedures were explained to the subjects. Low
General
Anxiely
The subjects were led to believe that they were going to participate in a large experiment in physiological psychology which deals with “the normal pl~ysiological reaction in a conversation situation.” They were told that they had been chosen to help in establishing baseline measurements for the whole experiment. The fact that they represented the norm was particularly stressed. The experiment was presented in a matter-of-fact, yet sympathetic, way. The possibility of self-disclosure or discussion of personal themes was clearly ruled out and the conversation was simplified and structured by telling the subjects that they would discuss “predetermined topics, which were pretested, and we know that students enjoy discussing them.” Subjects were asked to describe their feelings in the experimental situation under the pretext that “. from our past experience with the machine, we learned that it is very important to know the subjects’ feelings about the experiment before starting it.”
EMOTIONAL
Etfectivencss
AROUSAL
of the Experimental
ASD
AFFILIATIOS
.597
Maniplution
The experimental situation in this study involved arousal of differcllt kinds of anxiety. Emotional arousal depends on the kind of situation tllc, individual fnces, bnt it also depends 011 the individual’s past experiences ant1 predispositions for hecoming aroused. By m;ltching the gyo~lps 01~ the A-Trait varial,le-predispositio~l for anxiet!*---the, possibility of clif
598
YONA
MEAN A-STATE Kind and level of arousal High arousal Anxiety Embarrassment Low arousal Anxiety Embarrassment
a All p values ***p < .OOl.
TEICHMAN
TABLE 1 SCORES OF A-TRAIT AND MEAN COMPARISONS OF BEFORE AND AFTER EXPERIMENTAL TREATMWNT~ 2 A-Trait before
2F A-State before
3 A-State after
t: A-State before-after
36.25 36.70
35.25 34.75
43.15 42.45
4.57*** 7.07***
35.60 37.20 F = 0.204 df = 3/76 p - ns.
37.50 37.85 F = 0.754 df = 3/76 p - n.s.
35.85 38.50 F = 4.01 df = 3/76 p < .05
.69 .42
are for two-tailed
tests.
ferent levels of arousal due to individual differences, was ruled out. According to Spielberger’s theory about the relationship between ATrait and A-State, this matching should have led to a homogeneous level of A-State in the different groups. Indeed, this expectation proved to be true. Namely, before the experiment the groups did not differ significantly on their predisposition for anxiety, nor on their initial level of anxiety in neutral situations (A-State-I). Mean comparisons of A-Trait and A-State, before the experiment, are presented in Table 1. Now, we may proceed and check whether the experimental treatments provided two high and two low arousal conditions, and whether the two high arousal conditions differed in kind. The arousal level was checked by two indices: the comparison of A-State before and after the experimental treatment, and subjects’ introspective rating of their feelings of anxiety, emotional upset, concern, and ill-at-ease on a scale with a range of O-100. The before and after comparison is presented in Table 1 and the introspective ratings of feelings is presented in Table 2. The results in Tables 1 and 2 indicate that the treatments in this experiment succeeded to differentiate two levels of arousal. Table 1 indicates that the two high arousal conditions became significantly more aroused than in the initial stage, while in the two low arousal conditions the initial arousal level did not change significantly. Table 2 indicates that the two high arousal conditions reported significantly higher level of arousal than the two low arousal conditions. This is true both for the anxiety scale and the second administration of the A-State questionnaire (A-State-II). Further, Table 2 shows that the two high arousal conditions did not differ significantly in their arousal level, and that
EMOTIONAL
Instjnnnent
Kind
AROUSAL
AND
of arousal
599
AFFILIATION
High
l>OW
f
------
1=
A-State
Anxiety Embarrassment
II
Embarrassment,
scale
Anxiet,y Embarrassment
,ss
4::. 1-i 32 4.5 t.“s IS -.. ;)a 35.65 t=:;7s***
f =
.wi
25. S.i :3s. 50 I = .!I0 7 .,?I 7 (15 I= IS
3. oo*** 1 .ci7* ‘9x7*** 10. IO*** --
0 All p values *p = .lO **p < .05 ***p < .Ol.
are for P-tailed
tests.
the two low arousal conditions also did not differ significantly in it. Thus, differences obtained in the dependent variable can be attributed to different kinds of arousal rather than to different levels of arousal. The last thing to be evaluated before the analysis of the results is whether two different emotions are to be considered. It was suggested that the emotion aroused by Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) represents embarrassment and fear from social rejection. In order to check this, after each treatment subjects were asked to indicate how embarrassed. ashamed, or absurd they felt. The means of the embarrassment scores are presented in the last row of Table 2, and it is evident that what is referred to as an embarrassment arousal situation has the highest rmbarrassment score. In a one-way analysis of variance the difference among the embarrassment scores in the four groups proved to be significant beyond the .Ol level (F( 3,76) = 10.77). A closer look at the embarrassment means indicates that while the two arousal conditions do not differ significantly. the two high arousal conditions do. These results indicate that the experimental manipulation succeeded in differentiating two different kinds of emotional arousal: one represents an anxiety state while the other one represents a state of arousal in which feelings of embarrassment arc> strongly identified. Effects
of Anxiety
and Embarrassment
on Social Affiliation
The results relevant to the hypothesis about the differential influence of anxiety and embarrassment on social affiliation are presented in Table 3. For each treatment, the mean intensity of desire to affiliate.
600
YONA
TEICHMAN
TABLl? BETWEBN
THJC REL.~TIONSHIP EMOTIONAL
AROUSAL
3 DIFFISRENT TYPES AND AFFILIATION
OF
Subject’s Emotion and level of arousal
Mean affiliation strengtha
choice
Together
Alone
1s 15
2 5
12 17
6 5
___ Anxiet,y High Low Embarrassment High Low
Q Isolation
intensity
32.00 15.00 3.70 IS.00 Interaction (emotion S level): p < .05, F = 4.08, df = l/72 score subtracted
from
afiliation
intensity
score.
and the subject’s choice regarding his waiting condition, are presented. The hypothesis about an interaction between kind and level of arousal was clearly supported by the data. The interaction obtained from an analysis of variance is F( 1,72) = 4.08. This interaction is significant beyond the .05 level, and it indicates that in a high anxiety situation, intensity of affiliation increases, while in a high embarrassment situation affiliation decreases. When the means obtained in the two high arousal groups were compared, the result was highly significant (t = 3.373, p < .OOS). The two low arousal groups did not differ significantly (t = 34). When the two high arousal groups were compared with their control groups differences approached significance. The t obtained for the two anxiety conditions was 1.76, p < .lO (e-tailed), and the t obtained for the two-embarrassment conditions was 1.91, p < .lO (2-tailed). The difference between the embarrassment groups is a replication of the Sarnoff and Zimbardo (1961) results. The analysis of the kind of choices in the different groups provides additional evidence in the same direction. An overall comparison by x2 did not prove to be significant (x0- = 6.02). However, when the two high arousal groups were compared, the result was significant (x2( 1) = 4.80, p < .05). Subjects who experienced high embarrassment rejected more significantly the prospective possibility of associating with others than subjects who experienced high anxiety, Reasons Given for Affiliation
and Isolation
The distribution of choices according to the different reasons in the four groups is presented in Table 4.
EMOTIO1LAL
AROUSAL
AXD
AFFILI.%TIOX
601
The analysis of reasons given by subjects to explain their choice tlocs not provide much information. The small frequencies do not allow an adequate statistical analysis of the data. However. when wc look at the pattern of choices in the high anxiety group, WC see that the larger number of subjects (50%) indicated a need for anxiety reduction. “the mere presence of others is comforting and reduces worry.” The percentage of subjects who indicated the same need in the low embarrassment condition is, however, even higher (58.8%). Apparently, subjects ill this group felt a remarkable amount of discomfort. This reasniling ma\’ be supported by the fact that subjects in this group 011 one of the arousal comparisons differed only slightly in their arousal level from their corresponding arousal condition group. In Table 2. the last colunn~, thci arousal as indicated on L4-State II measurement bctwecn the t\vo-embarrassment conditions were compared (t = 1.67, I-, < .lO) . This higher arousal level may have contributed to the numwr subjrcts explained thrir choices in this group. Thus, when emotional arousal is experienced and people choose to affiliate, they explain their reaction ilr terms (I( anxiety reduction rather than looking for clarity. In the high embarrassment condition, S subjects indicated the preference to wait alone. The reasons they o&red to explaill their clwiw are i~t the line of the prediction of the fourth hypothesis. Subjects who chosc~ to wait alone did so mainly because they felt that they Inight appeal foolish or absurd. Six of the eight subjects chose the possibility whicll indicated fear from social rejection. The small frequencies in the two other categories were combined, and th? probability to obtain these. frequencies of choice were determined l)y the binomial test. Th(, probability for such distribution of choices is p = .ld. ,4lthough this prob. ability does not reach statistical significance. it nlny 1,~) concludf~(l that
602
YONA
TEICHMAN
choices in the specific embarrassment arousal condition were strongly determined by the anticipated social experiences in the waiting situation. Birth Order
and A#&tion
Although there were no predictions about the effects of ordinal position on affiliation, on the basis of findings obtained in previous studies, it was considered advisable to take this variable into account. The groups were matched on birth order and half of the subjects in each group were only or firstborn children. It is interesting to check whether this study replicates previous findings regarding this variable. A threeway analysis of variance revealed no significant difference and no specific interaction among birth order and kind or level or emotional arousal. According to these findings, birth order of male subjects does not seem to have any effect on social affiliation. DISCUSSION
The main issues investigated in this study were experimental procedures for arousing anxiety and the influence of such arousal on social affiliation. Further, theoretical suggestions were proposed and tested in order to offer a different explanation to Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s (1961) findings which excluded anxiety from Schachter’s (1959) emotional comparison theory. Most previous studies which tried to induce anxiety experimentally had a specific element in their treatment (Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961; Mandler & Watson, 1966; Lazarus & Opton, 1966; Schachter, 1959). In this study subjects were exposed to a situation which was strongly directed at the individual, yet new, vague, cognitively unclear, and allowed a wide range of individual interpretations. This kind of experience, which may be created experimentally, proved to be an effective device to induce anxiety, or more specifically-state anxiety (see Table 1) . Viewing affiliation as providing the individual with an opportunity for social comparison, and acquiring clarity about the self, it was predicted that new, ambiguous, and vague emotional states which do not disclose the individual’s specific conflicts would strengthen the wish to associate with others who are in the same situation. The purpose of such association would be emotional comparison and clarification of feelings. The hypothesis about the influence of an unspecified kind of anxiety on affiliation was clearly supported. Subjects who experienced this kind of arousal had a significantly stronger need to affiliate with other subjects (Table 3). These findings support previous reports which proposed that lack of cognitive clarity increases the preference to affiliate with others
EMOTIOXAL
AROUSAL
AND
AFFJLIATIOX
603
(Gerard, 1963; Gerard & Rabbie, 1961; Rabbie, 1963). However, as this study did not employ any physical threat, it demonstrated that emotional arousal which is due only to uncertainty about the self produces th( same affiliative reactions. These resuhs seem to contradict the findings reported by Sarnoff and Zimbardo ( 1961). but actually no contradiction is present. As proposed by Sarnoff and Zimbardo ( 1961) and replicated in this study, thele may be situations in which emotional comparison will be rejected. Yet this is not at all a generalization about all anxiety conditions; on the contrary. Sarnoff and Zimbardo indicate: “In view of the fact that our anxietyarousing stimulus was specifically desigiicd to tap only one kind of repressed motive, it of course remains an empirical question whethcl or not the evocation of other types of repressed motives also leads to social isolation (p. 362) .” Instead of evoking other specific reprcsscd motives, affiliative reactions to an unspecified kind of arousal rcpresenting anxiety were studied, and the results offer support for thcx emotiorral comparison theory. Sarnoff and Zimbardo’s ( 1961) findings about the affiliative reactions of subjects in a specific kind of arousal were replicated. Furthermore. ;m investigation of these subjects’ feelings and motivations revealed that they felt strongly embarrassed and absurd (Table 2), and chose isolation mainly in order to avoid exposure to social dc*valuation (Table 4 ). Although the last finding only approached significance ( p = .13 ). \\,hcu incorporated into the other findings relevant to this problem, it gains additional meaning. Thus, individuals who experience a specific kind of anxiety, which due to its specifity, may disclose concrete socialI): unaccepted themes about themselves to their prospective companions, prefer to avoid such company. It may be also suggested that the specifit); of the situation implied its emotional and situational clarity. This ;~s ~(~11 may reduce the affiliative tendency ( Latane & Wheeler. 1966). Following previous works (Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961; Zimbardo Kr Formica, 1963), subjects were asked to explain their waiting preference. The results accumulated until now, including those of the present study. indicate that subjects’ reports about their motivations for the “together” choice do not confirm clearly the emotional comparison theory. Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed; anxious subjects did not indicate that they had chosen to affiliate in order to reduce emotional unclarity. No significant pattern about subjects’ motivations for choosing “together” was detected for any one of the groups; the most preferred explanation pointed at anxiety reduction (Table 4). The introspective technique for studying the underlying moti\,ati(ms of affiliative behavior does not seem to provide clear results, One of the
604
YONA
TJZICHMAX
things that may improve it would be to study larger samples; this would provide reasonably large frequencies for each choice and would enable the formation of significant trends, if any. Another promising direction was suggested by Zimbardo and Formica ( 1963), and Darley and Aronson ( 1966). In these studies, subjects reflected their motivations by choosing prospective companions who represented different needs (usually emotional comparison vs anxiety reduction). This technique was found to support the emotional comparison theory, yet, as indicated by Darley and Aronson (1966), it also suffers from some limitations. In spite of the difficulties in determining the underlying motivations of affiliation, this problem has to be considered of primary importance and in need of further research. The fact that people, when emotionally aroused, generally choose to affiliate with others indicates that they are looking for social comparison, but does not prove it sufficiently. The study of motivations underlying the preference for isolation seems to be more promising. Although the results only approached significance they pointed out that the preference for solitude was guided by an avoidance pattern-avoidance of loss of esteem. This supports the interpretations which were ozered to the Sarnoff and Zimbardo findings by Bramel ( 1969), Cofer and Appley ( 1964)) and Walters and Parke ( 1964). The birth-order variable, which was carefully controlled in this study, did not prove to affect subjects’ affiliative tendencies. This is not surprising since the findings about the relationship among birth order, sex of subjects, and affiIiation are quite controversial. REFERENCES BRAMEL, U. Interpersonalattraction, hostility and perception. In J. Mills (Ed.), Experimental social psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Pp. 3-120. CATTELL, R. B. Anxiety and motivation: theory and crucial experiments. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety ancE behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Pp. 23-79. COFER, C. N., & APPLEY, M. H. Motiuation: theory and research. New York: Wiley, 1964. DARLEY, J. M., & AIIONSON, E. Self evaluation vs. direct anxiety reduction as determinants of the fear-affiliation relationship. Jownal of Experimentul Social Psychology, Supplement, 1966, 66-79. FREUD, S. The problem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936. GERARD, H. B. Emotional uncertainty and social comparison. Jo~rnul of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 568-573. GERARD, H. B., & RABBIE, J. Al. F’ear and social comparison. Journ& of Abnormul u& Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 586-592. JOURARQ S. M. The transpurent self. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1964. LATAPU‘E, B., & WHEELER, L. Emotionality and reactions to disaster. Journal of Edperimentaland Social Psychology,Supplement,1966, 95-102,
EMOTIONAL
R. S., & OPTON, theoretical formulations A&et!/ and behaior.
LAZARUS,
!X~AXDLER,
berger 2X8.
G.,
& WATSOS,
(Ed.),
Anxiety
AROUSAL
AXD
AFl”ILIATIOS
ms
E. M. The study of psychological strrss: a ~:uuIw~-> 01 and experimental findings. It1 C. D. SpiellwgeIi I-0. j1 New York: Academic PWSS. 1YMj. Pp. Z!5-26”. 1). Anxiety and intewnption c)f M~avior. Irz C. I). Spiciund bchacior. NC\\York: Acadeulic Prrs\. 1966. Pp. %i:i-