Content uploaded by Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet on Aug 05, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Positive Reappraisals 1
Running head: POSITIVE REAPPRAISALS OF AN INTERPERSONAL OFFENSE
CITATION:
Witvliet, C.V.O., Knoll, R.W., Hinman, N.G., and DeYoung, P.A. (2010). Compassion-focused
reappraisal, benefit-focused reappraisal, and rumination after an interpersonal offense:
Emotion regulation implications for subjective emotion, linguistic responses, and
physiology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 226-242.
Compassion-Focused Reappraisal, Benefit-Focused Reappraisal, and Rumination
after an Interpersonal Offense:
Emotion Regulation Implications for Subjective Emotion, Linguistic Responses, and Physiology
Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, Ross W. Knoll, Nova G. Hinman, & Paul A. DeYoung
Hope College
Please direct correspondence to Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet, Ph.D., Psychology Department,
Hope College, Holland, MI 49422-9000; phone: 616.395.7167; fax: 616.395.7163; email:
witvliet@hope.edu.
Positive Reappraisals 2
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support offered through a grant to the first author from the Fetzer
Institute (grant #2393), and consultation from Heath Demaree and Christopher Barney on
cardiovascular variables; Terry Blumenthal on facial EMG; Al Dueck on Latent Semantic
Analysis; Mike Alexander, Timothy Brandt, Lindsey Lawrence, Nora Slenk, Allison Smith, and
Ronna Zeluff for assistance with data collection and computation; John Shaughnessy and Scott
VanderStoep for consultation on analyses; and David G. Myers, Mike McCullough, Sidney
Callahan, and Philip Reynolds for their specific critiques of an earlier draft. This work
contributes to an interdisciplinary project on The Pursuit of Happiness established by the Center
for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University and supported by a grant from the John
Templeton Foundation.
Positive Reappraisals 3
Abstract
This repeated measures psychophysiology experiment studied three responses to a past
interpersonal offense (38 females, 33 males). We compared rumination with two offense
reappraisal strategies. Compassion-focused reappraisal emphasized the offender’s humanity, and
interpreted the transgression as evidence of the offender’s need for positive transformation.
Benefit-focused reappraisal emphasized insights gained or strengths shown in facing the offense.
Supporting the manipulations, compassion-focused reappraisal stimulated the most empathy and
forgiveness, whereas benefit-focused reappraisal prompted the most benefit language and
gratitude. Both reappraisals decreased aroused, negative emotion and related facial muscle
tension at the brow (corrugator). Both reappraisals increased happiness and positive emotion in
ratings and linguistic analyses. Compassion stimulated the greatest social language, calmed
tension under the eye (orbicularis oculi), and slowed heart beats (R-R intervals). A focus on
benefits prompted the greatest joy, stimulated smiling (zygomatic) activity, and buffered the
parasympathetic nervous system against rumination’s adverse effects on heart rate variability
(HRV).
(150 words)
Keywords: benefit-finding; compassion; forgiveness; gratitude; rumination; facial EMG; heart
rate variability (HRV); spectral analysis
Positive Reappraisals 4
Compassion-Focused Reappraisal, Benefit-Focused Reappraisal, and Rumination
after an Interpersonal Offense:
Emotion Regulation Implications for Subjective Emotion, Linguistic Responses, and Physiology
As the field of positive psychology has burgeoned in recent years, research has begun to
focus on strategies to promote happiness and well-being even after hurtful interpersonal offenses
(Witvliet, 2008). How people cope with a transgression can significantly affect their well-being,
with evidence for the salutary effects of forgiveness (e.g., Berry & Worthington, 2001; Lawler-
Row, Karremans, Scott, Edlis-Matityahou, & Edwards, 2008; Witvliet, Ludwig, & Vander Laan,
2001) and of gratitude cultivated by focusing on benefits even in adversity (e.g., Emmons &
McCullough, 2003; McCullough, Root, & Cohen, 2006; Tennen & Affleck, 2002). Meanwhile,
the field of emotion regulation has focused on the beneficial effects of reappraisal—thinking
differently about a situation, stimulated by Gross’ (2007) process model of emotion regulation.
The current study brings together these research streams in positive psychology and emotion
regulation, using an experimental paradigm to induce rumination and reappraisal strategies, and
testing their effects on well-being across subjective, narrative, and physiological measures.
The aim of this study is to test the emotion effects of two positive reappraisal approaches:
a focus on compassion as a means to approach forgiveness, and a focus on benefits as a way to
cultivate gratitude. This repeated measures experiment is designed to test whether each
reappraisal strategy is more effective than rumination for promoting well being, and whether one
reappraisal strategy—compassion-focused reappraisal or benefit-focused reappraisal—is superior
to the other in countering the effects of offense-related rumination. We assess well-being effects
by 1) measuring subjective ratings of emotion, 2) conducting linguistic analyses of participants’
Positive Reappraisals 5
written descriptions of their thoughts, emotions, physical responses, and behavioral motivations,
and 3) measuring physiological responses relevant to emotion communication and emotion-
regulation. These include measures of even subtle emotion displays on the face detected with
electromyographic (EMG) measures at the brow (corrugator) associated with negative emotion,
under the eye (orbicularis oculi) associated with aroused emotion, and at the cheek (zygomatic)
associated with positive emotion (see Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). We also include cardiac
measures because of relationships between emotion, regulation, and cardiac functioning (e.g.,
Mauss, Cook, Cheng, & Gross, 2007; Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). We especially highlight the
measure of heart rate variability (HRV) as an indicator of parasympathetic nervous system
functioning and regulatory control, the system which calms the body’s aroused “fight-or-flight”
response (e.g., Thayer & Brosschot, 2005).
Using a focus on multi-method assessments of well-being, we now turn to examine the
literature pertinent to the three experimental conditions of rumination and both cognitive
reappraisal strategies: compassion-focused reappraisal as an approach to forgive, and benefit-
focused reappraisal as an approach to cultivate gratitude.
Rumination
Rumination can occur naturally or be induced in the laboratory. It involves perseverative
thinking about one’s problems and emotions (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, and Lyubomirsky,
2008), which Rottenberg and Gross (2007) conceptualize as a failure in emotion regulation.
Rumination impairs problem-solving, worsens depression, decreases motivation, and erodes
social support (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). In the aftermath of an interpersonal offense,
rumination can incite an increase in negative emotions and deter prosocial responses such as
empathy (Witvliet et al., 2001; Witvliet, Worthington, Root, Sato, Ludwig, & Exline, 2008) and
Positive Reappraisals 6
forgiveness (McCullough, Bono, & Root, 2007). Rumination serves as a moderating variable
between anger and blood pressure (see Hogan & Linden, 2004). Rumination about an
interpersonal offender—as induced in the laboratory—has been associated with aroused and
negative emotion, increased blood pressure, heart rate, and sweat (skin conductance) levels, as
well as tension under the eye (orbicularis oculi) associated with emotional arousal, and tension
at the brow muscle (corrugator) associated with negative emotion (Witvliet et al., 2001).
Reappraisal: An Emotion-Regulation Antidote to Rumination
The purpose of this study is to test two ways to cognitively reappraise a hurtful offense.
In contrast to rumination, cognitive reappraisal construes an emotion-eliciting circumstance in
ways that can change the situation’s emotional impact, usually down-regulating adverse
emotions (see Lazarus & Alfert, 1964; Gross, 1998), but also up-regulating positive emotions
(Gross 2007; Rottenberg & Gross, 2007).
1
Reappraisal is associated with less depression, and
with more positive emotions and relationships, life satisfaction, self-esteem, optimism, and
overall well-being (Gross & John, 2003). Reappraisers also tend to overcome anger and show
more adaptive cardiovascular responses (Mauss et al., 2007). In an experimental design,
participants who reappraised—rather than ruminated about—an upsetting event experienced less
anger, cognitive perseveration, and sympathetic nervous system activity (Ray, Wilhem, & Gross,
2008). This evidence suggests that implementing positive reappraisals of an interpersonal
transgression may be effective strategies, at least in down-regulating rumination-driven
psychophysiology patterns.
Compassion-focused reappraisal as an approach to forgiveness. Compassion has been
conceptualized as an emotional response of connecting to another person, often through an
emphasis on shared humanity with the other (Cassell, 2002). Whereas compassion often is an
Positive Reappraisals 7
expression toward another who is suffering in a victim role, in this study we are interested in a
compassion-focused response to an offender. From this perspective, compassion emphasizes the
complex humanity of the offender and can interpret the offense as evidence showing that the
offender needs to experience positive transformation or healing. With an emphasis on the
offender’s human problems, the victim may find a genuine way to wish the offender well, even
while holding the offender accountable for his or her offense (Worthington, 2009).
Research has conceptualized compassion as a warmth-based virtue associated with
altruistic concern and with forgiveness in relevant contexts (Berry, Worthington, Wade, Witvliet,
& Kiefer, 2005). A study of crime victims, and their family and friends, showed that respondents
who valued warmth-based virtues (e.g., compassion, love) more than conscientiousness-based
virtues (moderation, self-control, justice) were more likely to grant forgiveness to the offender
(Berry et al., 2005).
Additional conceptual groundwork for the current investigation was developed by
Witvliet and McCullough (2007), who emphasized an approach to forgiveness that accents
altruistic concerns. With this approach to forgiveness, the victim cultivates genuine prosocial
responses and goodwill toward an unworthy offender, even if a relationship with the offender is
not re-established. This view resonates with theorizing that forgiveness involves the replacement
of negative emotions with positive and prosocial emotions (Worthington & Scherer, 2004). This
work further distinguishes forgiveness and reconciliation, calls offenders to accountability, and
resists condoning, minimizing, or excusing the offense (Witvliet & McCullough, 2007).
Until now, empirical research has not explicitly examined forgiveness in relationship to
compassion-focused reappraisal. Yet, the current study has a strong foundation in prior research.
When considering subjective and physical well-being, forgiveness-related conditions that
Positive Reappraisals 8
cultivated empathy and benevolent responses toward the offender—compared to rumination—
stimulated an increase in positive emotion, a reduction of negative and aroused emotion, and a
calming of cardiovascular and sympathetic nervous system activity (Witvliet et al., 2001).
Additional research associated forgiveness—as opposed to rumination—with less sympathetic
nervous system input to the heart (measured with rate pressure products; Lawler et al., 2003;
2008; Witvliet et al., 2008), lower blood pressure (Friedberg, Suchday, & Shelov, 2007), and
fewer reported illness-related symptoms (Bono, McCullough, & Root, 2008). The current study
focuses on implementing cognitive reappraisal to cultivate compassion toward a past offender.
Benefit-focused reappraisal as an approach to cultivate gratitude. Another type of
reappraisal strategy people can employ is to focus on the benefits they have experienced even in
the face of adversity. As a means of prompting gratitude, benefit-focused reappraisal can
involve either looking for evidence or reminding oneself of perceived benefits (Tennen &
Affleck, 2002). Such a focus on benefits has been associated with positive well-being and less
depression in a meta-analysis (Helgeson, Reynolds, & Tomich, 2006).
In the present study we investigate the effects of focusing on benefits experienced in the
face of an interpersonal offense. Examples of these benefits include self-understanding, insight,
personal growth, or strengthened relationships. Emmons (2008) has linked the “positive
recognition of benefits” to gratitude (p. 470). While gratitude involves both being grateful for a
benefit and being grateful to the source of the benefit (Emmons (2008), the current study
explicitly emphasizes the first component of focusing on benefits as a process that may generate
gratitude.
Experimental research on gratitude has investigated the effects of writing about things in
one’s life for which one is grateful (Emmons & McCullough, 2003). Across two studies, this
Positive Reappraisals 9
writing exercise prompted increases in gratitude, well-being, optimism when compared to
writing about daily hassles or control conditions. When written weekly for 10 weeks, grateful
participants also spent more hours exercising and had fewer physical symptoms. When written
daily for 13 days, grateful writers were more willing to help others, although no exercise or
physical effects were found. In a third study, participants with neuromuscular diseases who kept
a daily gratitude journal for 21 days reported significantly higher gratitude, satisfaction with life
as a whole, optimism about the next week, better sleep, and more connection to others. Other
research also associates gratitude with positive affect, life satisfaction, and happiness (Watkins,
Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003), lower negative emotions and higher prosocial responses
(McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002), as well as positive personality traits (McCullough,
Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001).
Research links focusing on benefits to better physical outcomes and views appraisal and
positive emotion as possible pathways for this relationship (see Bower, Low, Moskowitz, Sepah,
& Epel, 2008). As noted, writing about one’s blessings has effectively stimulated optimism,
more time spent exercising, and better health compared to writing about daily hassles (Emmons
& McCullough, 2003). Other research found that inducing states of appreciation (versus anger)
reliably enhanced parasympathetic activity, as indicated by heart rate variability (HRV;
McCraty, Atkinson, Tiller, Rein, & Watkins, 1995). Such activation of the calming branch of the
autonomic nervous system is related to a variety of beneficial mental and physical outcomes
(Hughes & Stoney, 2000) such as lower anxiety and greater cognitive flexibility (Thayer &
Brosschot, 2005).
Only one experimental study has induced a focus on benefits after an interpersonal
transgression. McCullough et al. (2006) asked participants to write about benefits they
Positive Reappraisals 10
experienced following a transgression, traumatic aspects of the transgression, or a mundane
control condition. Common benefits participants named included the realization of inner
strength, improved interpersonal relationships, renewed spirituality, a needed readjustment of
one’s priorities, and a new appreciation for one’s life. Writing about such benefits stimulated
significantly greater forgiveness toward the offender (McCullough et al., 2006), perhaps because
focusing on benefits reduced the perceived size of the injustice (Witvliet et al., 2008) .
Current Study
Emotional imagery paradigm. The current study adapts existing experimental
paradigms (Witvliet et al., 2001; 2008) to test the effects of compassion-focused reappraisal and
benefit-focused reappraisal approaches in comparison to ruminating about a past real-life
offense. By using a within-subjects, repeated measures design, we can compare participants’
responses in all of the conditions as we test hypotheses about emotion ratings, linguistic
narratives, facial displays of emotion using electromyography (EMG), and cardiovascular
functioning, with a specific focus on parasympathetic nervous system activity that is relevant to
emotion regulation (see Witvliet & McCullough, 2007). As we do so, we draw on a foundation
of research that links affective valence and arousal ratings to facial EMG and cardiac responses
during emotional imagery (e.g., Witvliet & Vrana, 1995).
Hypotheses. We hypothesized that we would see converging evidence across responses
systems, consistent with prior research. Overall, we predicted that each of the reappraisal
strategies would diminish negative and aroused emotion and promote positive and calm emotion
compared to offense rumination. Compared to rumination subjective ratings, each reappraisal
strategy would decrease ratings of arousal and anger, while increasing ratings of overall valence,
along with happiness and joy. As manipulation checks, we tested whether compassion-focused
Positive Reappraisals 11
reappraisal would be even more effective in stimulating empathy and heartfelt forgiveness in
comparison to offense rumination and benefit-focused reappraisal. We also tested whether
benefit-focused reappraisal would be more effective than rumination and compassion-focused
reappraisal in stimulating an increase in written benefits and gratitude.
For linguistic analyses, we hypothesized that both reappraisals (compassion-focused and
benefit-focused)—as opposed to rumination—would stimulate narratives more closely aligned
with positive emotion language, but more distant from negative emotion language. In terms of
word counts, we hypothesized that forgiveness language would be increased to a greater extent
by compassion than by a benefit-focus in comparison to rumination. Similar to findings by
McCullough et al. (2006), benefit-finding would stimulate a greater increase in benefit and
gratitude language than compassion. Both reappraisal strategies would increase positive emotion
language and decrease negative emotion language compared to rumination. Because of
compassion’s outward focus toward the offender, we hypothesized that it would generate more
social language than benefit-focused reappraisal.
Based on research investigating the physiological effects of reappraisal in relationship to
anger (Mauss et al., 2007), we hypothesized that the reappraisal conditions would reduce anger
and yield cardiac benefits in contrast to rumination. In prior research comparisons to unforgiving
hurt rumination and grudge-holding, empathy and forgiveness slowed heart rates while
decreasing anger (Witvliet et l., 2001). In the current study, we hypothesized that in comparison
to offense rumination, compassion-focused reappraisal would prompt empathy and forgiveness,
along with slower R-R intervals. Based on the conceptual groundwork of Witvliet and
McCullough (2007), we hypothesized that the compassion-focused reappraisal would increase
parasympathetic functioning, as assessed by heart rate variability (HRV). Prior research has
Positive Reappraisals 12
demonstrated that in contrast to anger, appreciation is associated with improved parasympathetic
functioning, evident in increased heart rate variability as indicated by high frequency (HF) values
in the power spectrum (McCraty et al., 1995). Thus, we hypothesized increases in HRV for
benefit-focused reappraisal.
Hypotheses about facial EMG were based on basic emotion and offense-related
experimental paradigms. In basic research on emotional imagery that systematically varied
valence and arousal in a 2 x 2 design, Witvliet and Vrana (1995) found that joy imagery
stimulated the most positive and aroused emotion, with highest cheek (zygomatic) muscle
activity associate with smiling. We predicted that in comparison to offense rumination, the
positive reappraisal responses would stimulate more positive affect and corresponding activity at
the cheek (zygomatic) muscle, with greatest activity occurring for the condition with the most
joy. We further predicted that reappraisal responses would decrease muscle activity at the brow
(corrugator) muscle associated with negative affect, and decrease muscle activity under the eye
(orbicularis oculi) associated with affective arousal arousal (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995). Prior
research showed that empathy and forgiveness yielded these effects compared to rumination
(Witvliet et al., 2001).
Positive Reappraisals 13
Methods
Participants
Seventy-one introductory psychology students (33 males, 38 females) participated as one
way to meet a research requirement. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 26 (M = 18.9 years,
SD = 1.3). Of the 71 participants, 63 were White, 3 Latin-American, 2 African-American, 1
Asian-American, and 2 did not specify ethnicity.
Design
The study used a repeated measures within-subjects design similar to that used by
Witvliet et al. (2001, 2008), counterbalancing across participants the presentation order of
compassion-focused reappraisal and benefit-focused conditions. Each participant identified and
reflected on a particular prior offense in which another person hurt and offended him or her. In a
90-minute paradigm, the participant completed four trials, each comprised of a two-minute pre-
trial baseline, followed by a two-minute period in which the participant ruminated about the past
real-life offense or implemented a reappraisal strategy. Half of the participants (blocked by
gender) were randomly assigned to proceed from offense rumination to compassion-focused
reappraisal, and then from offense rumination to benefit-focused reappraisal. The other half were
assigned to proceed from offense rumination to benefit-focused reappraisal, and then from
offense rumination to compassion-focused reappraisal.
To assess the effect of imagery on each physiological dependent variable, the data values
for each pretrial baseline were first subtracted from the values for each imagery period. For facial
EMG, each condition’s pretrial baseline values for the final 10-sec epoch were subtracted from
each 10-sec epoch during imagery. For R-R (beat-to-beat) interval data, the full 2-min period
was used because these values are collected on a beat-by-beat basis rather than as a function of
Positive Reappraisals 14
time. For heart rate variability (HRV), the full 2-minute values were required because
calculations of HRV are time dependent, requiring equal durations to be compared.
To determine the influence of each reappraisal strategy compared to rumination on each
variable, the data values for each reappraisal strategy trial (imagery minus pretrial baseline) were
statistically compared to the data values for the preceding offense rumination trial (imagery
minus pretrial baseline). In order to compare the effects of the two reappraisal strategies to each
other, a compassion-focused reappraisal effect score was calculated as compassion-focused
reappraisal (imagery - pretrial baseline) minus its preceding rumination trial (imagery – baseline)
and then statistically compared to a benefit-focused reappraisal effect score (imagery - baseline)
minus its preceding rumination trial (imagery - baseline).
Stimulus Materials
Instructions were displayed for 30-seconds on a computer monitor directly in front of the
participant. A tone signaled participants to open their eyes and read the relevant pre-trial baseline
relaxation, or imagery instructions for rumination, compassion-focused reappraisal, or benefit-
focused reappraisal. Experimental instructions directed them to close their eyes for all baseline
and imagery periods (each of which lasted for 120-seconds).
Pre-trial baseline instructions. “Please sit still for the next two minutes and try your
best to follow the instructions. It is important for you to sit still and get used to being quiet for a
while. Your job is to sit, relax, and think the word ‘one.’ Keep your arms, legs, and body still as
you remain quiet for a minute, thinking the word ‘one.’”
Offense rumination imagery instructions. “For the next two minutes, think of the
person you blame for hurting, offending, or wronging you. Think of the ways the offense harmed
you when it happened, and how it continued to negatively affect you. During your imagery,
Positive Reappraisals 15
actively focus on the negative thoughts, feelings, and physical responses you have as you think
about the negative ways the offender and offense harmed you.”
Compassion-focused reappraisal instructions. “For the next two minutes, try to think
of the offender as a human being whose behavior shows that person’s need to experience a
positive transformation or healing. Try to give a gift of mercy and genuinely wish that person
well. During your imagery, actively focus on the thoughts, feelings, and physical responses you
have as you cultivate compassion, kindness, and mercy for this person.”
Benefit-focused reappraisal instructions. “For the next two minutes, try to think of
your offense as an opportunity to grow, learn, or become stronger. Think of benefits you may
have gained from your experience such as self-understanding, insight, or improvement in a
relationship. During your imagery, actively focus on the thoughts, feelings, and physical
responses you have as you think about positive ways you benefited from your experience.”
Dependent Measures
Ratings. Participants privately and in random order rated their subjective emotions and
experiences after each imagery period (using a Biopac RB-730 response-pad and SuperLab
software). On a seven-point scale, participants rated their emotional valence (1 = negative to 7 =
very positive), perceived control (1 = not in control to 7 = very much in control), and arousal (1
= calm, relaxed, or sleepy to 7 = aroused, excited, or intense). Ratings for anger, happiness, joy,
empathy, forgiveness, and gratitude were assessed with a seven-point scale (1 = not at all to 7 =
completely). The empathy, forgiveness, and gratitude ratings were primarily assessed as
manipulation checks for the reappraisal strategies.
Analyses of written responses: Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) and Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). After each imagery period, participants were prompted to
Positive Reappraisals 16
describe their experience during imagery by typing sentences in response to four questions on a
laptop: “What were you THINKING during your imagery? What were you FEELING during
your imagery? What were your PHYSICAL REACTIONS during your imagery? What do you
WANT TO DO or SAY to your offender?” Latent semantic analysis (LSA:
http://lsa.colorado.edu) was used to compare the narrative a participant produced in an
experimental condition to a comparison positive emotion text and to a negative emotion text.
2
For word-count assessments of participants’ responses, Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count (LIWC: Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) software counted the number of words in
submitted texts that matched dictionaries. The standard LIWC English dictionary containing
categories for affect and social language was used to analyze the paragraphs in each
experimental condition. In addition, cost, benefit, forgiveness, and gratitude dictionaries were
created in LIWC to analyze participants’ use of these constructs, primarily as manipulation
checks.
3
Physiology
4
During the baseline and imagery periods, we continuously measured physiological
responses using standard methods (Biopac MP150 and Acqknowledge 3.9 software for an Apple
iMac G5). We measured covert facial muscle activity relevant to emotion using standard
electromyography methods at the zygomaticus (cheek) muscle, orbicularis oculi (under eye)
muscle, and corrugator supercilii (brow) muscle regions. Heart rate was measured using
electrocardiography (ECG).
Heart Rate Variability (HRV) was used because it is an important indicator of
parasympathetic nervous system activity. HRV was calculated using a frequency domain method
derived from R-R (beat-to-beat) intervals from the ECG data collected during each 120-s pretrial
Positive Reappraisals 17
baseline and each 120-s imagery period for each of the experimental conditions. The 0.15-0.4 Hz
High Frequency (HF) range of the power spectrum was used as the measure indicative of the
parasympathetic influences on the cardiac cycle (Task Force, 1996).
5
Procedure
Participants gave informed consent and individually completed an approximately 90–
minute experiment session. As they sat in a recliner in front of a flat screen monitor, their
electrodes and physiological recording devices were affixed and monitored on the computer
screen in the adjacent equipment room. The electrode areas were prepped with alcohol (and
electrode gel for the facial muscle sites) and allowed to dry before attaching electrodes. All
physiological measures were tested for clear and reliable signals before beginning a 120-second
baseline period of relaxation. Afterward, the participants completed a questionnaire on which
they identified a real-life interpersonal offense for which they held a particular person
responsible for having caused a personal hurt or offense.
Following the confidential questionnaire, participants completed a series of trials
pertaining to this specific real-life offense. Each trial consisted of a 120-second pretrial baseline
relaxation period, immediately followed by a 120-second imagery period. Each relaxing pretrial
baseline served as a control condition so that we could detect the physiological effects of the
experimental rumination, compassion-focused reappraisal, or benefit-focused reappraisal
conditions. During the pretrial and imagery periods, physiological measures were continuously
measured while participants closed their eyes and actively imagined responses according to the
instructions. A tone signaled participants to open their eyes at the end of each baseline,
rumination, or reappraisal period.
Positive Reappraisals 18
After each of the imagery periods, participants typed answers to questions related to how
they were thinking, feeling, physically reacting, and what they wanted to say or do to the
offender. Participants also made ratings on subjective emotions. When all imagery periods and
accompanying measures were completed, physiological recording devices were removed,
participants were debriefed.
Data Reduction
Following the experiment, physiology data were acquired using Acqknowledge 3.9.2
software. To ensure accuracy of the facial electromyography (EMG) data, outliers were
identified with the Explore function of SPSS 15.0 and removed to decrease any error due to
technological difficulties with the apparatus, possible electrical noise, or movement artifacts. To
ensure accuracy of the electrocardiogram (ECG) data and heart rate variability (HRV), the R-R
plots were inspected for outliers indicative of artifacts, which led to re-inspection of cardiac
wave forms. All Power Spectrum Density plots (see footnote 4 for HRV methods) were visually
inspected for well-defined High Frequency peaks. Finally, we inspected correlational plots of
High Frequency and RMSSD values in each baseline and imagery period for outliers.
Statistical Analyses
Ratings, written narratives, and physiological data in this repeated measures, within-
subjects design were analyzed using multivariate ANOVA analyses. Means, F values, p values,
and ANOVA statistics for ratings and narratives are reported in Table 1. Descriptive and
ANOVA statistics for physiological variables are displayed in Table 2 and significant effects,
along with 95% confidence intervals, are depicted in the Figures.
Positive Reappraisals 19
Results
Self-reports
Table 1 presents the self-report means and statistical effects for compassion-focused
reappraisal compared to its relevant offense rumination, benefit-focused reappraisal compared to
its relevant offense rumination, and the two reappraisal strategies’ effects compared to each
other. In addition to these planned comparisons, we also assessed the ratings and linguistic
analyses produced during a relaxation trial versus the experimental conditions. All of the
conditions focused on the offender prompted higher ratings of arousal (all Fs > 30.72, ps < .001,
partial
2
> .31) and anger (all Fs > 29.69, ps < .001, partial
2
> .30). In the written narratives
about the different responses to their offenders, participants used more social words (all Fs >
44.24, ps < .001, partial
2
> .39), anger words (all Fs > 8.28, ps < .005, partial
2
> .11), and
cost words (all Fs > 17.22, ps < ,001, partial
2
> .20). These findings collectively show that
participants were engaged in the experimental responses to their offenders, and that reappraisal
did not simply prompt globally calm and positive reports.
Ratings. When each reappraisal strategy was compared to its respective preceding
offense rumination period, ratings for emotional valence moved from negative to positive,
control increased, and ratings for arousal decreased. Compared to offense rumination, use of a
reappraisal strategy down-regulated ratings for anger while up-regulating happiness and joy.
When the effects of offense rumination trials are subtracted from the corresponding
reappraisal strategy, the effects of the reappraisal strategies can be compared. Joy increased the
most in response to benefit-focused reappraisal.
Positive Reappraisals 20
As confirmation of our manipulation, Table 1 shows that compassion-focused reappraisal
reliably increased empathy more than benefit-focused reappraisal, which increased gratitude
significantly more than compassion-focused reappraisal.
Linguistic analyses. As shown in Table 1, repeated measures analyses of variance for the
Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) negative emotion word probe (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.792)
revealed that both compassion-focused reappraisal and benefit-focused reappraisal narratives
were more distant from negative affective language in comparison to their preceding offense
rumination trials. In addition, a benefit focus decreased use of negative language from offense
rumination significantly more than a compassion focus. Tests with the positive emotion text
probe (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.619) revealed that both compassion-focused reappraisal and
benefit-focused reappraisal narratives were closer to positive language compared to their
respective rumination periods.
For Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analyses, repeated measures analyses of
variance revealed that compared to the relevant offense trial, both compassion-focused
reappraisal and benefit-focused reappraisal increased positive emotion and insight language, as
well as forgiveness and benefit language. Both reappraisal strategies decreased negative emotion,
anger, and cost language compared to the relevant offense trials. Only compassion-focused
reappraisal increased social language compared to the preceding offense condition. In contrast,
benefit-focused reappraisal decreased social language compared to its offense. In a direct
comparison of the two reappraisal strategies, compassion-focused reappraisal increased social
language more than benefit-focused reappraisal, consistent with the prosocial focus of
compassion in contrast to a greater emphasis on the self that attends an emphasis on benefits one
has received.
Positive Reappraisals 21
As a manipulation check, compassion-focused reappraisal increased forgiveness language
more than benefit-focused reappraisal, while benefit-focused reappraisal increased benefit
language and gratitude word use more than compassion-focused reappraisal.
Physiology
Table 2 presents the physiological means and statistical effects for compassion-focused
reappraisal compared to its corresponding offense rumination, benefit-focused reappraisal
compared to its corresponding offense rumination, and both reappraisal strategies’ effects
compared to each other.
Facial electromyography (EMG). Compared to their respective offense rumination
periods, both altruistic imagery and benefit-focused reappraisal imagery were associated with
significantly less brow (corrugator) EMG reactivity (Figure 1). Because corrugator activity has
been linked to negative affect (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995), these findings dovetail with ratings
results to indicate that negative affect reliably decreased during reappraisal strategies compared
to offense rumination. When subtracting out relevant offense rumination trials from each
corresponding reappraisal strategy and comparing these effects directly, compassion-focused
reappraisal was more effective than benefit-focused reappraisal at reducing corrugator activity.
Compared to offense rumination, compassion-focused reappraisal prompted significantly
less reactivity under the eye (orbicularis oculi EMG) (Figure 2). Along with the findings for
corrugator activity, this provides support for the theory that reappraisal strategies can decrease
the negative affect and emotional arousal associated with rumination (Witvliet et al., 2001).
Benefit-focused reappraisal stimulated significantly higher activity at the cheek
(zygomaticus EMG) than the preceding offense rumination period (Figure 3). Combined with the
increases in positive affective ratings for benefit-focused reappraisal, these findings provide
Positive Reappraisals 22
support for established theories linking zygomaticus activity and positive affect (see Witvliet &
Vrana, 1995). This benefit-focused reappraisal effect on zygomaticus EMG—subtracting the
previous offense trial score—was not significantly greater than the effect of compassion-focused
reappraisal, F(1,43) = 3.07, p = .087.
Cardiovascular measures. In contrast to offense rumination, compassion-focused
reappraisal significantly lengthened the time between R–R (beat-to-beat) peaks in the ECG
waveform (Figure 4). This demonstrates that—unlike rumination, which consistently accelerated
R-R intervals compared to pretrial baseline, ts (65) > |2.77|, ps < .01—an altruistic focus on the
offender reliably calmed the cardiac cycle.
Heart rate variability (HRV) results for the high frequency (HF) component of the power
spectrum showed that benefit-focused reappraisal significantly aided parasympathetic function
(Figure 5). Benefit-focused reappraisal effectively countered rumination’s impairment of
parasympathetic functioning from pretrial baseline levels, t(62) = -2.84, p <.01.
Discussion
The current experiment brings together the positive psychology and reappraisal literatures
to address a common problem—coping with the pain of an interpersonal offense. Because
interpersonal offenses affect almost everyone and have been found to influence
psychophysiological well-being, research testing positive reappraisal strategies for regulating
emotions has broad relevance (McCullough et al., 2006; Witvliet et al., 2001).
We specifically studied two ways to reappraise an interpersonal offense: 1) compassion-
focused reappraisal as approach to cultivate forgiveness, and 2) benefit-focused reappraisal as an
approach to stimulate gratitude. We compared each to the widely-studied and clinically relevant
process of rumination (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008), which holds a significant place in
Positive Reappraisals 23
transgression-related research (Witvliet & McCullough, 2007). We tested which reappraisal
strategy more reliably brought about particular affective changes. We tested whether cognitive
reappraisals—using a focus on compassion or on benefits—not only down-regulated negative
emotions associated with offense-related rumination, but also up-regulated positive emotions
(Gross, 2007). We did so by measuring emotion ratings, written narratives about one’s thoughts,
feelings, physical experiences, and desired behavioral responses to the offender, as well as
physiological variables involved in facial displays of emotion and nuances in cardiovascular
responding. We begin by examining the effects of rumination, proceed to address effects shared
by both positive reappraisal strategies, and then address unique effects attributable to
compassion-focused reappraisal and benefit-focused reappraisal.
Rumination Contributions
The results from this study dovetail with research showing that prompts to ruminate
about an offense can incite an increase in negative emotions, decrease prosocial responses, and
lead to cardiovascular and sympathetic nervous system arousal (Witvliet et al., 2001; 2008).
These results fit with recent efforts to summarize findings on rumination and its effects (Nolen-
Hoeksema et al., 2008) by showing how the negative thinking process of rumination up-regulates
negative emotion and down-regulates positive emotion. These findings resonate with the view
that—unless one aims to intensify negative affective appraisals, language, and physiology—
rumination is not an effective emotion-regulation strategy (Rottenberg & Gross, 2007). The
rumination condition was associated with negative ratings and expressions in written narratives,
as well as EMG activity at the brow (corrugator) and under the eye (orbicularis oculi),
associated with negative emotional valence and emotional arousal, respectively (see Witvliet &
Vrana, 2005). Post-hoc analyses showed that rumination changes from pretrial baseline included
Positive Reappraisals 24
significant cardiac acceleration (decreasing the time between heartbeats) and impaired
parasympathetic nervous system functioning. Furthermore, rumination was associated with low
levels of positive emotions, including happiness, joy, empathy, forgiveness, and gratitude.
Positive Reappraisal Contributions
The two positive reappraisal strategies differed substantially in their focus. The
compassion-focused reappraisal focused on cultivating compassion for the offender by
emphasizing his or her humanity, and by viewing the offense as evidence that this person needed
to experience positive change or healing. The benefit-focused reappraisal focused on the offense
as an opportunity to grow, learn, or become stronger, and on finding ways in which one had
developed self-understanding or relational improvements that benefited oneself. Compassion-
focused reappraisal was focused on giving; benefit-focused reappraisal was focused on receiving.
Compassion-focused reappraisal focused on the other; benefit-focused reappraisal focused on the
self.
Nevertheless, both reappraisal strategies had many similar, significant effects. By
reinterpreting the real-life offender and offense, both reappraisals stimulated aroused, angry, and
costly responses in comparison to a relaxation period. However, compared to offense
rumination, both ways to reappraise the hurt decreased aroused, angry, and cost-oriented
measures. Consistent with ratings and written narratives, both approaches significantly quelled
tension at the brow (corrugator) muscle associated with negative emotion (Witvliet & Vrana,
1995).
The opposite also occurred: both compassion-focused reappraisal and benefit-focused
reappraisal moved valence ratings from the negative side of the scale to the positive side, and
Positive Reappraisals 25
significantly up-regulated control, happiness, and joy. Dovetailing with this pattern, the written
narratives showed an increase in positive emotion.
Manipulation checks showed that compassion-focused reappraisal prompted the highest
empathy ratings and most forgiveness language. Similarly, benefit-focused reappraisal yielded
the most benefit language and highest gratitude ratings and word counts. Even so, compassion-
focused reappraisal not only prompted forgiveness, but also recognition of benefits and an
increased in gratitude—a relationship not previously tested in the literature. Showing the
opposite influence, benefit-focused reappraisal not only stimulated writing about one’s benefits
and increased gratitude, but also forgiveness toward the offender. This pattern replicates a self-
report finding by McCullough et al. (2007). When bolstered by benefits—and experiencing the
greatest joy—people were motivated to spread their up-regulated positive emotion through
forgiveness for the offender.
The positive valence of these compassion-focused reappraisal and benefit-focused
reappraisals may have a spill-over effect that generates a broadly positive response set, consistent
with Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden and build theory of positive emotion. When people work
through the process of forgiving or benefit-focused reappraisal, they engage the hurt, interpret its
significance, and reshape their response to the offender in a way that integrates the hurtful
offense with a larger view of reality. This refocuses victims’ attentional, motivational, and
emotional processing on cultivating more merciful, positive, prosocial responses to the offender
or on recognizing benefits gained in the face of adversity, such as lessons learned, insights
gained, or strengths shown. Insofar as forgiveness or benefit-focused reappraisal involve active
attempts to reappraise the transgressor and the transgression, these positive reappraisals not only
Positive Reappraisals 26
down-regulate negative and aroused responses, but also up-regulate positive and calmer
responses, as indicated by changes in affective ratings, language, and physiology.
Compassion-focused Reappraisal as an Approach to Forgiveness
The current data advance our understanding of the unique effects of compassion for the
offender as an approach to forgive. The compassion-focused reappraisal condition prompted
participants to cognitively reappraise the offender as a human being whose behavior shows that
person’s need to experience a positive transformation or healing. Participants were instructed to
try to genuinely give a gift of mercy, compassion, and wish that person well. Compassion-
focused reappraisal uniquely increased social language in the written narratives, compared to
rumination and to benefit-focused reappraisal. These findings are consistent with theorizing
about altruistically oriented forgiveness as a positive and prosocial expression of love for one’s
enemy against the backdrop of the hurtful transgression (see Witvliet & McCullough, 2007). The
empathy and forgiveness data dovetail with findings from an experimental study of prosocial
forgiveness (Witvliet et al., 2001), and the social language data extend existing findings in
theoretically consistent ways.
Physiologically, compassion-focused reappraisal had unique effects on the face and heart.
Compassion-focused reappraisal reliably decreased orbicularis oculi EMG under the eye and
reliably slowed the cardiac cycle, as evident in lengthened R-R (beat-to-beat) intervals in the
electrocardiogram. Both of these effects are consistent with reductions in affective arousal as
found in basic emotion research using an emotional imagery paradigm (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995).
Benefit-focused Reappraisal in Relationship to Gratitude
This study also advances the literature testing the relationship between a focus on
benefits as a way to cultivate gratitude (Emmons, 2008; Emmons & McCullough, 2003).
Positive Reappraisals 27
Conceptualized as the ability to appreciate and to be thankful for benefits recognized or gained in
the face of an interpersonal transgression, benefit-focused reappraisal stimulated significantly
greater gratitude ratings and writing (as well as benefit language) than compassion-focused
reappraisal. Benefit-focused reappraisal stimulated the highest levels of joy along with
concomitant increases in zygomatic (smile) EMG, fully consistent with basic affective
psychophysiology research findings for joy (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995).
Cardiovascular heart rate variability (HRV) data highlight that—similar to appreciation
effects (McCraty et al., 1995)—benefit-focused reappraisal buffered the parasympathetic
nervous system, countering the reductions in HRV associated with rumination. Future efforts to
tease apart sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system effects may prove fruitful in
charting the affective and physiological pathways through which benefit-focused reappraisal may
accrue health benefits (Bower et al., 2008).
Opposite to compassion-focused reappraisal, benefit-focused reappraisal narratives were
significantly less focused on others than offense rumination. The linguistic data reflect the nature
of the reappraisals in that benefit-focused reappraisal explicitly focused participants on
themselves and their own perceived benefits, whereas compassion-focused reappraisal was
centered on compassionately and generously reappraising the offender in a way that stimulated
the granting of forgiveness to that offender. Benefit-focused reappraisal is a less social, more
self-focused coping approach that may be a more attractive positive reappraisal for individuals
who are not motivated or ready to engage in compassion-focused forgiveness. Despite its focus
on receiving benefits for the self, however, benefit-focused reappraisal did stimulate intrapsychic
forgiveness both in the current study and in McCullough et al.’s (2007) study.
Positive Reappraisals 28
Summary, Limitations, and Conclusions
The current results suggest that the use of either reappraisal strategy is more
psychologically and physiologically beneficial than engaging in offense rumination. These
findings converge with efforts to incorporate forgiveness and gratitude in cognitive therapy
(Bono & McCullough, 2006). Still, a limitation of the current study is that in this 90-minute
paradigm, we could sample only one induction of each offense-related response. Future research
may test whether gains can increase with repeated inductions, and whether such gains are
maintained for longitudinal assessments. Such work would have useful implications for the
types of cognitive interventions that Bono and McCullough (2006) have begun to explore.
Each reappraisal approach exhibited unique effects. Compassion-focused reappraisal was
the most socially oriented response, generating the highest empathy and forgiveness language.
Complementing this prosocial response set, was a calmer physiological responses on two
measures tied to affective arousal in repeated measures research (Witvliet & Vrana, 1995).
Compassion-focused reappraisal was uniquely associated with more subdued tension under the
eye (orbicularis oculi) and cardiac beat-to-beat intervals.
Benefit-focused reappraisal stimulated the highest levels of gratitude ratings and writing,
and also differed most from the negative emotion probe used in Latent Semantic Analyses.
Benefit-focused reappraisal prompted the greatest subjective experience of joy, consistent with a
unique increase in cheek muscle activity (zygomatic) suggestive of smiling (Witvliet & Vrana,
1995). Furthermore, heart rate variability (HRV) indicators of parasympathetic functioning were
significantly higher for benefit-focused reappraisal in comparison to ruminating. Through its
effects on the body’s calming, regulating system, benefit-focused reappraisal appears especially
effective in countering rumination’s impairing effects on the parasympathetic nervous system.
Positive Reappraisals 29
One’s choice of a reappraisal strategy may hinge largely on whether one’s post-
transgression orientation is more self-protective or other-directed. A self-protective state or
disposition may direct one first toward benefit-focused reappraisal. An other-directed state or
trait may make compassion-focused reappraisal one’s first choice. Regardless of the reappraisal
strategy people adopt to cope with their interpersonal offense, they may stimulate a positive
emotional shift that promotes their forgiveness and gratitude. For people who struggle with
genuinely offering forgiveness or compassion to their offenders in an altruistic way, choosing
benefit-focused reappraisal will still facilitate forgiveness. For those who have difficulty finding
the “silver lining” of the offense they suffered, adopting a compassionate response toward their
offender may still stimulate feelings of gratitude. Both approaches subdued negative emotions
and prompted positive emotions, enhancing psychophysiological well-being. Future
investigations may fruitfully explore whether cultivating these responses over time can change
one’s disposition in ways that promote long-term well-being and flourishing.
Positive Reappraisals 30
References
Berntson, G. G., Lozano, D. L. & Chen, Y.-J. (2005). Filter properties of root mean square
successive difference (RMSSD) for heart rate. Psychophysiology, 42, 246-252.
Berry, J.W., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2001). Forgivingness, relationship quality, stress while
imagining relationship events, and physical and mental health. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 48, 447-455.
Berry, J.W., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Wade, N.G., Witvliet, C.V.O., Kiefer, R.P. (2005).
Forgiveness, moral identity, and perceived justice in crime victims and their supporters.
Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 29, 136-162.
Bono, G., & McCullough, M.E. (2006). Positive responses to benefit and harm: Bringing
forgiveness and gratitude into cognitive psychotherapy. Journal of Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 20, 47-158.
Bono, G., McCullough, M.E., & Root, L.M. (2008). Forgiveness, feeling connected to others,
and well-being: Two longitudinal studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 182-195.
Bower, J. E., Low, C. A., Moskowitz, J. T., Sepah, S., & Epel, E. (2008). Benefit finding and
physical health: Positive psychological changes and enhanced allostasis. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 223–244.
Cassell, E. (2002). Compassion. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 434-445). New York: Oxford University Press.
Emmons, R.A. (2008). Gratitude, subjective well-being, and the brain. In M. Eid & R.J. Larsen
(Eds). The science of subjective well-being. (pp. 469-489). New York: Guilford Press.
Positive Reappraisals 31
Emmons, R.A., & McCullough, M.E., (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An
experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-
and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Friedberg, J.P., Suchday, S., & Shelov, D.V. (2007). The impact of forgiveness on
cardiovascular reactivity and recovery. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 65,
87-94.
Gross, J. J. (2007). Handbook of emotion-regulation. New York: Guilford Press.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent
consequences for experience, expression and physiology. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 224-237.
Gross, J. J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation
processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85, 384-362.
Gross, J. J. & Levenson, R.W. (1997). Hiding feelings: The acute effects of
inhibiting negative and positive emotion. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 95-103.
Hogan, B.E., & Linden, W. (2004). Anger response styles and blood pressure: At least don’t
ruminate about it! Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 38-49.
Helgeson, V. S., Reynolds, K. A., & Tomich, P.L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of
benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 797-816.
Hughes, J.W., & Stoney, C.M. (2000). Depressed Mood is related to high-frequency heart rate
variability during stressors. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, 796-803.
Positive Reappraisals 32
Lawler, K.A., Younger, J.W., Piferi, R.L., Billington, E., Jobe, R., Edmondson, K., &
Jones, W.H. (2003). A change of heart: Cardiovascular correlates of forgiveness in
response to interpersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 26, 373-393.
Lawler-Row, K.A., Karremans, J.C., Scott, C., Edlis-Matityahou, M., & Edwards, L.
(2008). Forgiveness, physiological reactivity and health: The role of anger. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 68, 51-58.
Lazarus, R.S. & Alfert, E. (1964). Short-circuiting of threat by experimentally altering
cognitive appraisal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 195-205.
Mauss, I.B., Cook, C.L., Cheng, J.Y.J., & Gross, J.J. (2007). Individual differences in
cognitive reappraisal: Experiential and physiological responses to an anger
provocation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 66, 116-124.
McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Tiller, W.A., Rein, G., & Watkins, A.D. (1995). The effects
of emotions on short-term power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability. American
Journal of Cardiology, 76, 1089-1092.
McCullough, M.E., Bono, G., & Root, L.M. (2007). Rumination, emotion, and
forgiveness: Three longitudinal studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
92, 490-505.
McCullough, M.E., Emmons, R.A., & Tsang, J. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual
and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 112-127.
McCullough, M.E., Kilpatrick, S.D., Emmons, R.A., & Larson, D.B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral
affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249-266.
Positive Reappraisals 33
McCullough, M.E., Root, L.M., Cohen, A.D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an
interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 74, 887-897.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400-424.
Pennebaker, J.W., Booth, R.J., & Francis, M.E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count:
LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
Ray, R.D., Wilhelm, F.H., & Gross, J.J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye? Anger rumination
and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 133-145.
Rottenberg, J. & Gross, J.J. (2007). Emotion and emotion regulation: A map for
psychotherapy researchers. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 323-328.
Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing
and Electrophysiology. (1996). Heart rate variability: Standards of measurement,
physiological interpretation, and clinical use. European Heart Journal, 17, 354-381.
Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2002). Benefit-finding and benefit-reminding. In C.R. Snyder
& S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 584-597). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Thayer, J.F., & Brosschot, J.F. (2005). Psychosomatics and psychopathology: Looking up and
down from the brain. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 1050-1058.
Watkins, P.C., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R.L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness:
Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-
being. Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 431-452.
Positive Reappraisals 34
Witvliet, C.V.O. (2008). Forgiveness: Healing hurts, restoring happiness. In S.J. Lopez (Ed.),
The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology, Volume 1, pp. 403-410. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Witvliet, C.V.O., Ludwig, T., & Vander Laan, K. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring
grudges: Implications for emotions, physiology, and health. Psychological Science, 12,
117-123.
Witvliet, C.V.O., & McCullough, M.E. (2007). Forgiveness and health: A review and theoretical
exploration of emotion pathways. In S. Post (Ed.), Altruism and Health: Is It Good to be
Good? New York: Oxford University Press.
Witvliet, C.V.O., Worthington, E.L., Root, L.M., Sato, A.F., Ludwig, T.E., & Exline, J.J. (2008).
Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental
psychophysiology analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 10-25.
Witvliet, C.V.O. & Vrana, S.R. (1995). Psychophysiological responses as indices of affective
dimensions. Psychophysiology, 32, 436-443.
Worthington, E.L., Jr., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy
that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and
hypotheses. Psychology and Health, 19, 385-405.
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2009). A just forgiveness: Responsible healing without excusing
injustice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Positive Reappraisals 35
1
Emotion regulation strategies are categorized into antecedent-focused strategies, which are employed to influence responses
prior to the full experience of an emotional event, and response-focused strategies, which are used after experience of an emotion
to down- or up-regulate its effect (Gross, 1998). Such strategies may be employed consciously or automatically. Studies focusing
on emotion regulation timing features typically present novel emotion-eliciting sensory stimuli in the lab (e.g. Gross & Levenson,
1997; Gross, 1998). In assessing an emotional response to a real-life interpersonal offense, however, the pre-existence of the
emotional event may not allow for the categorization of emotion regulation strategies using time unless it is calculated in
relationship to the onset of memory activation.
2
Latent semantic analysis (LSA: http://lsa.colorado.edu) was used to investigate the similarity of participants’ language in these
paragraphs compared to affective texts within the context of a repertoire of Western writing. LSA does not count words, but
rather simulates representations of human knowledge. LSA uses a semantic corpus based on a large repertoire of Western writing
from the third grade level through the first year of college and then applies a technique similar to factor analysis (singular value
decomposition). Within the semantic space, LSA determines the similarity of two texts by calculating a cosine value. Here, we
compared the narrative a participant produced in an experimental condition to a comparison positive emotion text, and then to a
negative emotion text. Thus, for each emotion word probe (positive and negative), each participant has a cosine for each
experimental condition (compassion-focused reappraisal, benefit-focused reappraisal, and rumination).
3
An LIWC dictionary of benefit words was created for the current study based on words present in participants’ written
paragraphs. Because analyses with our benefit dictionary yielded the same results as using the one developed by McCullough et
al. (2006), we report the results using their dictionary. Our LIWC forgiveness word dictionary was: altruism, amend*,
compassion*, empath*, forgave, forgiv*, love*, loves*, loving*, merciful*, mercy*, sympath*, appreciativ*. Our Gratitude Word
Dictionary for LIWC was: blessed, glad, gladness, grateful*, gratitude, thank*. Two raters—blind to condition—developed
mutually exclusive forgiveness and gratitude categories from a random order of participant responses. Raters separately
determined whether to accept or reject each word based on goodness of fit in its designated category. Inter-rater reliability was
100% for gratitude and 97% for forgiveness, with consensus used to discard two forgiveness words and reach 100% agreement.
4
To serve as a ground, we attached skin conductance level pre-gelled Biopac EL507 snap electrodes fitted to LEAD110A
electrode leads placed on the index and middle fingers of the left hand. Data were sampled at 62.5 HZ and amplified by a Biopac
GSR100C electrodermal response amplifier set for a gain of 5 mho/V. As in other imagery studies, only habituation was found.
Facial electromyography activity (EMG) was measured (Biopac EMG 100C units) on a second-to-second basis for the
zygomaticus (cheek) muscle, orbicularis oculi (under eye) muscle, and corrugator supercilii (brow) muscle regions using two 4
mm EL258RT Biopac Ag-AgCl electrodes placed at each site on the left side of the face. Skin was first prepared with an alcohol
pad and Biopac Gel 100. Each electrode was fitted with a Biopac ADD204 adhesive collar and filled with gel. EMG was sampled
at 2000 Hz amplified by Biopac EMG100C amplifiers set for a gain of 1000 and using 10 Hz high-pass and 5 kHz low-pass
filters. EMG data was first digitally filtered using the Comb Band Stop Filter to select the line frequency at 60 Hz and
overharmonics selecting all up to the Nyquist frequency. Data were filtered using the FIR Bandpass option to select the Bartlett
window with a low frequency cutoff fixed at 28, high frequency cutoff fixed at 500, and Q coefficients set to 286. Next the EMG
data were rectified and integrated by averaging over 10 samples and taking the root mean square of the entire wave form.
Electrocardiogram (ECG) data were measured by placing one Biopac pre-gelled El503 snap electrode fitted to a Lead110S
on the left rib and one on the right clavicle. Rubbing alcohol was used to clean each electrode placement site. Heart rate data was
sampled at 1000 Hz and amplified by 1000 Hz using the Biopac ECG100C electrocardiogram amplifier. Continuous R-R
intervals were calculated in seconds for each condition using ECG data.
The Heart Rate Variability Specialized Analysis function of Acqknowledge used methods and produced values that were not
consistent with guidelines and expected ranges based on the Task Force (1996) paper. Using the standards published by the Task
Force (1996), Paul DeYoung wrote a software program that followed the specifications published for calculating and using the
High Frequency component of the power spectrum to determine the parasympathetic contribution to the cardiac cycle. The 120-s
trial R-R data were interpolated with cubic splines and then 1024 uniformly spaced values were calculated. A Welch
periodogram estimate of the Power Spectrum Density (PSD) was calculated from the Fast Fourier Transform of de-trended
subintervals of the 120-s period (7 segments with a 50% overlap). Each subinterval was multiplied by a Hamming
window. Results were cross validated with two other programs (HRV Analysis Software 1.1 from the Biomedical Signal
Anlaysis Group, Deparntment of Applied Physics, University of Kuopio, Finland; Mindware HRV 2.51). We also calculated
correlations with values produced using the Root Mean Squared Successive Differences method (all rs > .8), and we report the
RMSSD results below.
5
As a comparison to spectral analysis, we used the time domain method of calculating the square root of the mean of the sum of
the squares of the differences between consecutive R-R intervals (RMSSD). RMSSD is sensitive to the high frequency indicators
of parasympathetic activation, but it also includes some lower frequency fluctuations indicative of sympathetic contributions
(Berntson, Lozano, & Chen, 2005). The benefit-focused reappraisal effect on HRV was more reliable for the HF than for the
RMSSD method. Only the benefit-focused RMSSD was marginally higher than the relevant offense RMSSD, F(1, 61) = 3.95, p
= .051,
partial
2
=.06, consistent with Berntson et al.’s (2005) characterization of HF as preferable for repeated measures
analyses of HRV.
Positive Reappraisals 36
Table 1
Means, Degrees of Freedom, (1,70), and F values for Ratings, Latent Semantic Analysis, and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
Offense (C)
a
vs. Compassion-Focus Offense (B)
b
vs. Benefit-Focus Compassion Effect vs. Benefit Effect
c
Dependent Variable M M F partial
2
M M F partial
2
M M F partial
2
Ratings (1 to 7 range, -6 to 6 change)
Arousal 4.18 3.10 33.31*** .32 4.31 3.38 21.84*** .24 -1.09 -0.93 0.28 .01
Valence 2.79 4.75 123.00*** .64 2.83 4.96 113.62*** .62 1.96 2.13 0.41 .01
Control 4.01 4.82 19.15*** .22 4.09 4.93 12.89*** .16 0.80 0.85 0.03 .00
Anger 4.23 2.49 68.45*** .49 4.23 2.35 87.26*** .56 - 1.73 -1.87 0.34 .01
Happiness 2.39 3.97 68.21*** .49 2.41 4.48 90.03*** .56 1.58 2.07 3.36 .05
Joy 2.20 3.51 54.95*** .49 2.07 4.23 116.98*** .63 1.31 2.16 10.84** .13
Empathy 2.79 4.94 110.27*** .61 2.80 4.27 57.44*** .45 2.16 1.47 6.94* .09
Emotional Forgiveness 3.00 4.96 94.83*** .58 2.86 4.48 56.51*** .45 1.96 1.62 2.12 .03
Gratitude 2.55 4.11 55.35*** .44 2.59 4.78 96.05*** .58 1.56 2.18 3.95* .05
Table 1 continued…
Positive Reappraisals 37
…Table 1 continued
Offense (C)
a
vs. Compassion-Focus Offense (B)
b
vs. Benefit-Focus Compassion Effect vs. Benefit Effect
c
Dependent Variable M M F partial
2
M M F partial
2
M M F partial
2
Latent Semantic Analysis (Cosines of Distance from Probe Type)
Positive Emotion Language 0.17 0.22 17.38*** .20 0.17 0.21 11.00** .14 0.05 0.03 0.63 .01
Negative Emotion Language 0.29 0.26 5.26* .07 0.30 0.23 39.00*** .36 -0.03 -0.07 4.28* .06
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (Word Count)
Social Words 9.73 13.78 32.43*** .32 10.62 8.35 6.55* .09 4.05 -2.27 27.07*** .28
Positive Affective Words 3.01 9.16 41.95*** .38 3.18 9.94 65.98*** .49 6.15 6.76 0.21 .00
Negative Affective Words 8.02 2.91 40.83*** .32 8.35 3.01 67.062*** .49 -5.10 -5.35 0.08 .00
Anger Words 3.37 0.94 19.67*** .22 4.12 1.17 37.77*** .35 -2.43 -2.95 0.72 .01
Cost Words 5.39 1.60 42.74*** .38 5.12 1.94 36.63** .34 -3.79 -3.25 0.48 .01
Forgiveness Words 0.36 2.79 18.88*** .21 0.39 0.95 5.07* .07 2.43 0.56 12.84*** .16
Benefits Words 1.49 4.47 35.78*** .34 1.40 5.74 68.16*** .50 2.98 4.34 4.04* .06
Gratitude Words 0.07 0.19 1.17 .02 0.04 1.00 17.30*** .20 0.12 0.97 10.76** .13
Note.
a
Offense conditions before Compassion-Focused Reappraisal conditions.
b
Offense Conditions before Benefit-Focused Reappraisal conditions.
c
Offense (before Compassion) subtracted from
Compassion, compared to Offense (before Benefit-Focus) subtracted from Benefit-Focus.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Positive Reappraisals 38
Table 2
Physiological Changes from Pretrial Baseline: Means, F Values, and Degrees of Freedom for the Repeated Measures Multivariate Analyses of Variance
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Offense (C) vs. Compassion-Focus Offense (B) vs. Benefit-Focus____
Dependent Variable M M F (df) partial
2
M M F (df) partial
2
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMG (μV)
Zygomatic 0.112 0.090 0.11 1,51 .00 0.083 0.223 4.77* 1,50 .09
Corrugator 1.202 0.269 11.54*** 1,53 .18 1.867 0.925 4.65* 1,53 .08
Orbicularis Oculi 1.165 0.440 5.31* 1,59 .08 0.775 1.189 1.64 1,57 .03
Cardiovascular Measures
R-R Interval Average (msec) -12.817 0.539 6.81** 1,64 .10 -12.760 -8.811 0.43 1,63 .01
High Frequency HRV (ms
2
) -109.085 -45.856 0.21 1,58 .00 -300.370 118.197 13.11*** 1,61 .18
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
…Table 2 continued
Positive Reappraisals 39
…Table 2 continued
Physiological Means, F Values, and Degrees of Freedom for the Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance Multivariate Analyses
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Compassion-Focus Effect vs. Benefit-Focus Effect
Dependent Variable M M F (df) partial
2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EMG (μV change)
Zygomatic -0.019 0.155 3.07 1,43 .07
Corrugator -1.120 -0.544 1.55 1,47 .03
Orbicularis Oculi -0.772 0.316 7.66** 1,54 .12
Cardiovascular Measures(change)
R-R Interval Average (msec) 14.040 5.055 1.28 1,62 .02
High Frequency HRV (ms
2
) 64.451 392.713 3.19 1,57 .05
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Note.
a
Offense conditions before Compassion-Focused Reappraisal conditions.
b
Offense Conditions before Benefit-Focused Reappraisal conditions.
c
Offense (before Compassion) subtracted from
Compassion, compared to Offense (before Benefit-Focus) subtracted from Benefit-Focus.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
Positive Reappraisals 40
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Both compassion-focused and benefit-focused reappraisals significantly reduced
corrugator (above the brow muscle) EMG activity compared to their preceding offense imagery
periods. Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. *p < .05, *** p < .001.
Figure 2. Only compassion-focused reappraisal significantly decreased orbicularis oculi (under
the eye muscle) EMG activity compared to its preceding offense imagery period. benefit-focused
reappraisal did not have a significant effect compared to its preceding offense imagery period.
Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. *p < .05.
Figure 3. Only benefit-focused reappraisal significantly increased zygomaticus (cheek muscle)
EMG activity compared to its preceding offense imagery period. Compassion-focused
reappraisal had no significant effect compared to its preceding offense imagery. Bars indicate
95% confidence intervals. *p < .05.
Figure 4. Only compassion-focused reappraisal significantly slowed average R-R intervals
compared to its preceding offense imagery period. benefit-focused reappraisal had no significant
effect. Bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. **p < .01.
Figure 5. Only benefit-focused reappraisal significantly buffered the High Frequency (HF)
indicator of Heart Rate Variability (HRV) compared to its preceding offense imagery period.
compassion-focused reappraisal had no significant effect. Bars indicate 95% confidence
intervals. ***p < .001.
Positive Reappraisals 41
Figure 1
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
Offense (C) Compassion Offense (B) Benefit-Focus
uV Change from Pretrial Baseline
***
*
Figure 2
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
Offense (C) Compassion Offense (B) Benefit-Focus
uV Change from Pretrial Baseline
*
Positive Reappraisals 42
Figure 3
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
Offense (C) Compassion Offense (B) Benefit-Focus
uV Change from Pretrial Baseline
*
Figure 4
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Offense (C) Compassion Offense (B) Benefit-Focus
ms Change from Pretrial Baseline (Inverted)
**
Positive Reappraisals 43
Figure 5
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
ms
2
Change from Pretrial Baseline
***
Offense (C) Compassion Offense (B) Benefit-Focus
