First, I share with Menninghaus et al. and all Behavioral and Brain Sciences readers the pleasure I experienced in reading this elegant and thought-provoking target article. In this comment, I argue that the very function of the Embracing factor, which “positively integrates, assimilates, or adopts the powers of negative emotions in the service of making art reception more emotional, more intense, more interesting, and, in the end, more rewarding” (sect. 1, point B, para. 1), requires an additional sixth processing component termed the social sharing of negative emotions. This argument is based on theories that emphasize the social function of emotions (Fischer & Manstead Reference Fischer, Manstead, Lewis, Haviland-Jones and Barrett2008; Keltner & Haidt Reference Keltner and Haidt1999; Rimé Reference Rimé and Gross2007). In a nutshell, they argue that, as humans are social beings, emotions are essentially interpersonal; they signal inner states and action tendencies to other individuals. The act of sharing emotions with others is motivated by, for example, venting, seeking support, finding understanding, and bonding (see Rimé Reference Rimé2009). In turn, this leads to affiliation, enhances group cohesion, and ultimately serves the function of survival. Consequently, social sharing is a universal and often employed act of emotion regulation that is often met with subjective success. It is important to note that the social sharing of negative emotions in real life does not necessarily lead to recovery in the sense that the negative emotion is immediately and completely eliminated (Rimé Reference Rimé and Gross2007; Reference Rimé2009). However, this finding does not invalidate my argument of the importance of conceptualizing social sharing in the context of the enjoyment of negative emotions in art reception because (a) there should be several – quantitative and qualitative – differences among the emotions elicited by the arts and in real life, and (b) Menninghaus et al.'s model is “not a model of conversion, if conversion means a full-blown transformation of negative into positive affect” (sect. 4.6).
How does social sharing work in the process of positively integrating negative emotions into a rewarding perception of art? Please consider how often you attend places where you experience emotions elicited by the arts such as theaters, museums, cinemas, concerts, and readings, along with significant others (reading a book alone is certainly an exception to this rule). Please then remember how often and intensely you share your emotions with your companion immediately after the cultural event by talking about the emotions that this event elicited in you (not to mention the not so well-educated individuals who – to our displeasure – talk during the event). It is important that there are several additional nonverbal ways to share emotions in the form of crying together, consoling somebody, touching each other, exchanging glances, and so forth, that can also unfold during the event. Social sharing leads to affiliation, bonding, and relief, which are rewarding and definitely positive. As such, social sharing is at the core of transforming negative emotions into the enjoyment and pleasure of art reception.
It is interesting to note that this argument is in principle laid out in Menninghaus et al.'s article when they elaborate on empathy, compassion, and being moved in the case of sadness (sect. 4.2.1). These thoughts simply need to be transferred from an intrapersonal perspective to an interpersonal one: Person 1's sadness, which can be observed and is actively shared, leads to the empathic and compassionate actions of person 2 (and often vice versa), which, in turn, leads to positive feelings on both sides. (Anecdotal evidence says that at least for some individuals, the ultimate motivation to attend operas and watch movies is that it is fantastic to weep bitterly with your best friend.)
The same logic can in principle be applied to the benefits of social sharing in the cases of horror and disgust in art reception. In these cases, one can also think of an additional “social” component of impression management: To show significant others that you are not at all scared or that you enjoy being scared can have important interpersonal functions in terms of bonding and/or power, and subsequently, these experiences lead to pleasure (usually only for the actor in the case of power/dominance).
These assumptions can be put to empirical tests by assessing negative and positive emotions and indicators of the aesthetic enjoyment of art with or without other individuals. Specifically, one can systematically vary (a) the type of art (e.g., movie, play, painting), (b) the dominant negative emotion that it induces (sadness, fear/horror, disgust), and (c) the presence or absence of other people. Within the condition “presence,” one can further differentiate among (i) the presence of a (any) person versus the presence of a significant other, and (ii) sharing emotions verbally and/or nonverbally versus not sharing versus suppressing.
Finally, I add that even when engaging in art reception alone, we can anticipate, remember, or imagine the act of sharing our inner feelings with close others, a process that should help regulate these feelings in a manner that is similar to the process outlined above. Taken together, as humans are social beings and emotions have important social functions, the social sharing of negative emotions is the key to regulating and transforming them into positive ones, also and especially in art reception.
First, I share with Menninghaus et al. and all Behavioral and Brain Sciences readers the pleasure I experienced in reading this elegant and thought-provoking target article. In this comment, I argue that the very function of the Embracing factor, which “positively integrates, assimilates, or adopts the powers of negative emotions in the service of making art reception more emotional, more intense, more interesting, and, in the end, more rewarding” (sect. 1, point B, para. 1), requires an additional sixth processing component termed the social sharing of negative emotions. This argument is based on theories that emphasize the social function of emotions (Fischer & Manstead Reference Fischer, Manstead, Lewis, Haviland-Jones and Barrett2008; Keltner & Haidt Reference Keltner and Haidt1999; Rimé Reference Rimé and Gross2007). In a nutshell, they argue that, as humans are social beings, emotions are essentially interpersonal; they signal inner states and action tendencies to other individuals. The act of sharing emotions with others is motivated by, for example, venting, seeking support, finding understanding, and bonding (see Rimé Reference Rimé2009). In turn, this leads to affiliation, enhances group cohesion, and ultimately serves the function of survival. Consequently, social sharing is a universal and often employed act of emotion regulation that is often met with subjective success. It is important to note that the social sharing of negative emotions in real life does not necessarily lead to recovery in the sense that the negative emotion is immediately and completely eliminated (Rimé Reference Rimé and Gross2007; Reference Rimé2009). However, this finding does not invalidate my argument of the importance of conceptualizing social sharing in the context of the enjoyment of negative emotions in art reception because (a) there should be several – quantitative and qualitative – differences among the emotions elicited by the arts and in real life, and (b) Menninghaus et al.'s model is “not a model of conversion, if conversion means a full-blown transformation of negative into positive affect” (sect. 4.6).
How does social sharing work in the process of positively integrating negative emotions into a rewarding perception of art? Please consider how often you attend places where you experience emotions elicited by the arts such as theaters, museums, cinemas, concerts, and readings, along with significant others (reading a book alone is certainly an exception to this rule). Please then remember how often and intensely you share your emotions with your companion immediately after the cultural event by talking about the emotions that this event elicited in you (not to mention the not so well-educated individuals who – to our displeasure – talk during the event). It is important that there are several additional nonverbal ways to share emotions in the form of crying together, consoling somebody, touching each other, exchanging glances, and so forth, that can also unfold during the event. Social sharing leads to affiliation, bonding, and relief, which are rewarding and definitely positive. As such, social sharing is at the core of transforming negative emotions into the enjoyment and pleasure of art reception.
It is interesting to note that this argument is in principle laid out in Menninghaus et al.'s article when they elaborate on empathy, compassion, and being moved in the case of sadness (sect. 4.2.1). These thoughts simply need to be transferred from an intrapersonal perspective to an interpersonal one: Person 1's sadness, which can be observed and is actively shared, leads to the empathic and compassionate actions of person 2 (and often vice versa), which, in turn, leads to positive feelings on both sides. (Anecdotal evidence says that at least for some individuals, the ultimate motivation to attend operas and watch movies is that it is fantastic to weep bitterly with your best friend.)
The same logic can in principle be applied to the benefits of social sharing in the cases of horror and disgust in art reception. In these cases, one can also think of an additional “social” component of impression management: To show significant others that you are not at all scared or that you enjoy being scared can have important interpersonal functions in terms of bonding and/or power, and subsequently, these experiences lead to pleasure (usually only for the actor in the case of power/dominance).
These assumptions can be put to empirical tests by assessing negative and positive emotions and indicators of the aesthetic enjoyment of art with or without other individuals. Specifically, one can systematically vary (a) the type of art (e.g., movie, play, painting), (b) the dominant negative emotion that it induces (sadness, fear/horror, disgust), and (c) the presence or absence of other people. Within the condition “presence,” one can further differentiate among (i) the presence of a (any) person versus the presence of a significant other, and (ii) sharing emotions verbally and/or nonverbally versus not sharing versus suppressing.
Finally, I add that even when engaging in art reception alone, we can anticipate, remember, or imagine the act of sharing our inner feelings with close others, a process that should help regulate these feelings in a manner that is similar to the process outlined above. Taken together, as humans are social beings and emotions have important social functions, the social sharing of negative emotions is the key to regulating and transforming them into positive ones, also and especially in art reception.