Chapter 4 - Good News! Capitalizing on Positive Events in an Interpersonal Context
Introduction
In this chapter, we discuss theory and research about the social sharing of positive events, a process we call capitalization. One of the most important ways that people react to positive events is to tell others about them. In an extensive cross-cultural study based on multiple methods and samples, Argyle and Henderson (1984) concluded that sharing good news with a close friend is one of the six most important rules of friendship. An early study by Langston (1994) supported their finding—when people shared or celebrated the news of a positive event with others, they experienced more positive affect than could be attributed to the event itself. Langston called this social sharing of good news capitalization. Capitalization appears to be quite common. In studies that we subsequently describe in greater detail, people tell at least one other person about the best thing that happened to them over the course of the day between 60% and 80% of the time (e.g., Gable and Maisel, 2009, Gable et al., 2004).
Findings from daily experience studies dovetail with studies using different methods. For example, Algoe and Haidt (2009) asked participants to recall a time when they got something they had really wanted and describe what, if anything, they did as a result. Participants spontaneously mentioned telling or wanting to tell other people about their good feelings more than 80% of the time. Of course, people are more likely to share important events than to share trivial events. However, capitalizing on seemingly small events is also common (Gable et al., 2004, Reis et al., 2009, Study 5); for example, in our college-student studies, “sleeping in” is a commonly relayed positive event. More importantly, as we later elaborate, Langston label of “capitalization” was apt because the act of disclosing a positive event may expand its benefits beyond the event itself.
Similar to findings showing that the act of seeking out others in stressful circumstances does not by itself account for all social support effects, capitalization effects are not merely a function of relating the positive event to others. The response of the person with whom the positive event is shared is also important. That is, the nature of the target's response to the capitalization attempt is systematically associated with the discloser's outcomes. And because the responder is likely to be a close other (e.g., friend, romantic partner, family member, roommate), the response to capitalization attempts has implications for the ongoing relationship between the responder and the discloser.
In this chapter, we first provide the theoretical rationale and empirical background supporting our research on capitalization attempts, responses to capitalization attempts, and perceptions of the availability of effective capitalization support. We present a model for understanding the role of capitalization in both intrapersonal and interpersonal processes, and review the empirical evidence supporting this model. Finally, we discuss research on capitalization in the broader context of relevant literatures, address its theoretical implications, and note unanswered questions for future research.
Arguably, it is possible that the processes that regulate reactions to negative events are the same as those that regulate reactions to positive events. That is, the sharing of positive events could be linked to the same outcomes as the sharing of negative events, so that responding effectively to positive event disclosures could be comparable to responding effectively to negative event disclosures. Nevertheless, decades of research in several areas of psychology—such as motivation, attitudes, personality, and emotions—suggests that this is not the case. Much research converges on the idea that two independent systems regulate behavior: one involved with rewards or positive situations and the other involved with threats or negative situations. These regulatory systems are often called appetition and aversion, respectively (e.g., Cacioppo and Gardner, 1999, Carver, 1996, Higgins, 1998, Lang et al., 1990, Miller, 1959, Watson et al., 1988).
For example, after reviewing evidence from several literatures, Carver, Sutton, and Scheier (2000) concluded that approach behaviors and positive affect are managed by one regulatory system, whereas avoidance behaviors and negative affect are managed by a separate regulatory system. Empirically, Gable et al. (2003) found support for a two-factor structure—one appetitive and one aversive—across a wide array of personality and individual difference measures (see Fig. 4.1). Others have pointed out that the appetitive and aversive distinction exists across diverse species (e.g., Schneirla, 1959), may be fundamental and innate (e.g., Elliot & Covington, 2001), and is rooted in separate neurophysiological systems (e.g., Harmon-Jones and Allen, 1997, Sutton and Davidson, 1997).
It has been well established that positive affect is separate and distinct from negative affect (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 1997, Watson and Tellegen, 1985). That is, positive emotions are not merely the absence of negative emotions, and vice versa. Conceptually, positive emotions are thought to serve a different function than negative emotions. Many theoretical models propose that a major function of negative emotions is to orient people toward threats, dangers, and other environmental problems (e.g., Frijda, 1986, Lazarus, 1991). These negative emotions narrow attention and cognition in order to prepare the person to act in a particular, potentially adaptive way. In contrast, Fredrickson (1998) proposes that positive emotions function to broaden the scope of cognition, attention, and action in order to build resources.
Thus, the very function of positive emotions differs from the function of negative emotions. Naturally occurring positive and negative affect in daily life tend to be only moderately (negatively) correlated (e.g., Diener et al., 1995). Along the same lines, research has also shown that different types of events elicit different sets of emotions (e.g., Gable et al., 2000, Larsen and Ketelaar, 1991, Nezlek and Gable, 2001, Watson et al., 1999). Specifically, the occurrence of positive events is strongly associated with increased positive emotions, such as joy, but not decreased negative emotions, such as anxiety. Moreover, the occurrence of negative events is predominately associated with increases in negative emotions but not necessarily decreases in positive emotions (Gable et al., 2000).
Substantial evidence indicates that positive emotions are linked to health and well-being (for a review, see Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). This link is not explained by the simple absence of or decreases in negative emotion (e.g., Salovey et al., 2000). For example, Pettit et al. (2001) have shown that positive affectivity but not negative affectivity predicts self-reported health. And, in terms of long-term outcomes, Danner et al. (2001) found that expressing positive emotions in written form was inversely predictive of mortality six decades later. These findings echo Harker and Keltner's (2001) finding that facial expressions of positive emotion captured in yearbook photos predicted well-being 30 years later.
Based on this and other evidence, researchers have suggested that for optimal well-being, positive emotions must outnumber negative emotions. For example, Fredrickson and Losada (2005) demonstrated that flourishing individuals experience more positive emotions than negative emotions, with the most advantageous ratio being three positive emotions for every one negative emotion.2 Regardless of the optimal proportion of positive to negative emotions, it is clear that positive emotions are distinct from negative emotions, have specific functions, and are independently linked to health and well-being. Thus, understanding responses to the events closely associated with positive emotions (i.e., positive events) presents a research imperative.
Further evidence that processes related to positive events are distinct from those related to negative events comes from research on motivation and goal-directed behavior. Of these two distinct systems, one is involved in approaching rewards and the other is involved in avoiding threats (for a review, see Elliot, 2008). Prominent examples of this work include Carver and Scheier, 1990, Higgins, 1998 models of self-regulation. Carver and Scheier (1990) describe one goal system in which progress is compared to an internal reference in an attempt to reduce the discrepancy (approach) and other goal system in which progress is compared to an internal reference in an attempt to enlarge the discrepancy (avoidance; Carver, 1996). Higgins' (1998) regulatory focus model is similar in distinguishing a promotion focus, which is directed at the attainment of positive or desired end states, from a prevention focus, which is directed at the evasion of negative or undesired end states.
As in the case of emotion, motivation researchers also postulate that the approach and avoidance motivational systems have roots in different behavioral functions and physiological systems (e.g., Carver, 1996). Indeed, both human and animal studies support the existence of separate neurobiological systems underlying approach and avoidance motivation (e.g., Cain and LeDoux, 2008, Lang and Bradley, 2008). Thus, the physiological circuitry involved in obtaining and responding to rewards differs from that involved in avoiding and responding to threats. We view these findings as further indication that responses to positive rewarding events are not simply the mirror image of responses to negative punishing events.
In no other domain of life is there better evidence of the potential for both benefit and harm than in the domain of close relationships. On the potential benefit side of the equation, comprehensive reviews have consistently found that having positive, supportive social interpersonal ties is associated with better functioning of the cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune systems (e.g., Uchino et al., 1996). Similarly, many studies have shown that having positive close relationships is strongly associated with self-reported happiness and life satisfaction (e.g., Berscheid and Reis, 1998, Diener and Seligman, 2002).
On the potential harm side of the equation, it has long been recognized that relationships can be a major source of distress and misery (e.g., Rook, 1984). For example, relationships characterized by conflict and negativity are associated with deterioration in immune (e.g., Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001) and cardiovascular function (e.g., Ewart et al., 1991). Berscheid and Reis (1998) concluded that toxic relationships were the greatest cause of life unhappiness. And, relationship difficulty is the most common presenting problem in psychotherapy (e.g., Pinsker et al., 1985). In short, close relationships can involve both appetitive and aversive processes (Gable & Reis, 2001). Accordingly, research on close relationships reflects both types of processes (although existing research emphasizes aversive processes, as we subsequently address).
Examples of aversive processes studied in close relationships include studies of conflict and the management of negative affect during interactions (e.g., Christensen & Walczynski, 1997). This work demonstrates that toxic patterns of interactions, such as negative affect reciprocity, predict dissatisfaction with and dissolution of relationships (Gottman et al., 1998). An example of research on an appetitive process in close relationships is Aron and colleagues' work, showing that when couples participate in novel-arousing activities together they report increased relationship quality (Aron et al., 2000).
Examining both appetitive and aversive relationship processes is important to understanding close relationships, as suggested in Gable and Reis's (2001) review of the literature. Paralleling research in other areas, appetitive processes characterize behavior, motivation, and affect associated with rewarding aspects of relationships, whereas aversive processes characterize behavior, motivation, and affect associated with threatening or punishing aspects of relationships. Of note here, their model suggests that because appetitive processes are functionally independent of aversive processes, they should predict different intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. Thus, the social sharing of positive events is important to investigate, and these relationship processes are likely not to be mirror images of the social sharing of negative events (traditional social support). In particular, capitalization serves different functions, is linked more strongly to different outcomes, and unfolds in a manner distinct from social support.
Systematic examination of capitalization processes is relatively recent, but there are several well-established social–psychological phenomena related to capitalization. It is useful to differentiate capitalization from these other processes, the most obvious of which is social support. Like social support, capitalization can occur when one member of a relationship dyad experiences a personal event that primarily affects himself or herself. These personal events differ from events or interactions that take place in the context of a relationship and that involve both members of the dyad (e.g., conflict, transgressions, benefit provision, shared activity). In addition, in both social support and capitalization, the person who experienced the event relates it (directly or indirectly) to the other person; in turn, the other person's response influences the discloser's coping and the relationship between disclosure and responder.
Nevertheless, social support and capitalization differ in at least one fundamental way. Successful social support transactions lead to alleviation of negative outcomes, whereas successful capitalization transactions lead to growth of positive outcomes. The literature on the functional distinction between positive and negative emotions reviewed above suggests that this structural difference has several important implications for the individual and the relationship. We discuss these implications in more detail in subsequent sections.
Capitalization processes also overlap with self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) processes (Beach et al., 1998, Tesser, 1988). SEM processes pertain to situations in which one person outperforms another person on self-relevant tasks. People who have been outperformed can experience positive feelings, such as basking in the reflected glow of the successful other. They may also experience negative feelings such as resentment and envy (e.g., Tesser, 1988). According to the SEM model, reactions are determined by a variety of factors including how self-relevant the domain is and the closeness of the two individuals (Tesser & Campbell, 1982). Depending on these factors, people experience either reflection—self-evaluation gains through association with a superior performer—or comparison—self-evaluation losses through perceived poorer performance (Tesser, 1988).
When one person shares news of a positive event, SEM processes may come into play. This would be the case when the positive event involves performance, especially in an area of self-relevance to the responder. However, this situation represents only a small portion of positive events shared. Many shared events have little or no performance–outcome implications, and so reflection is more likely, which facilitates capitalization interactions. When the shared event has implications for the responder's sense of self-worth, findings from SEM research are incorporated into our model of capitalization.
Finally, capitalization processes intersect with research on positive affect and positive emotions. In fact, we hypothesize that positive emotions are a key outcome affected by capitalization. However, as we discuss, capitalization processes involve mechanisms other than emotions, and have implications for the self and relationships beyond emotions. For example, capitalization attempts and responses influence event perception and evaluation by the discloser, and may alter closeness and propartner behavior. Although positive emotions play a key role in capitalization, other processes are also operative.
In our presentation of the research in this chapter, our goal was to establish a foundation for focused examination of positive event sharing. Why have capitalization processes not been studied earlier? In their comprehensive review, Baumeister et al. (2001) concluded that bad events have more power than good events across a wide variety of outcomes. However, most of the studies they reviewed did not systematically compare positive and negative events (see Footnote 1). Moreover, recent studies have shown that positive processes, such as emotion expression, may have substantial impact over long periods of time (e.g., Danner et al., 2001). These types of long-term longitudinal studies are rare.
Additionally, as is predicted by an independent appetitive and aversive model, positive events tend to be correlated with different outcomes than negative events. Because these outcomes were not included in past studies, their impact may have been overlooked. Furthermore, even if “bad is stronger than good” on an event-by-event basis, positive events occur more often. Whereas any single negative event may have greater impact than any single positive event, positive events may have greater impact en masse. Several other methodological factors may also favor aversive processes over appetitive processes in comparative studies (see Gable and Reis, 2001, Rook, 1998 for reviews).
Another reason that positive events may not have been the focus of research until recently was the lack of a theoretical framework for positive emotions. Work spurred by Fredrickson's (1998) model has, however, advanced understanding of positive emotions and has provided a springboard for several areas of research on positive processes, including capitalization. Indeed, research on positive emotions is not the only area that has seen a surge of interest. Research on positive processes has increased rapidly in the past decade, and although the balance of attention still overwhelmingly favors negative processes, important new areas have been opened to empirical scrutiny (e.g., human strengths, happiness, hope; see Gable & Haidt, 2005). Studies of capitalization are consistent with this general trend.
Section snippets
A Theoretical Model of Capitalization Processes
Our description of capitalization focuses on three main elements: capitalization attempts, responses to capitalization attempts, and perceptions of the availability of capitalization support. Capitalization attempts are important because they provide an opportunity for partners to provide (or not provide) a positive, engaged response. When the process unfolds successfully, both personal and interpersonal benefits accrue. Unsuccessful attempts, on the other hand, are likely to have detrimental
What types of events are shared and with whom?
To determine when and with whom people share positive events, we have conducted several daily experience studies. In our first study (Gable et al., 2004, Study 1), we asked people to briefly describe their best event of the day for 7 days. Events ranged from the mundane (such as receiving a note from a friend or being complimented by a boss) to the seemingly weighty (such as being accepted into graduate school or meeting one's “future spouse”). Over half of the events (57%) concerned social
Capitalization Processes and Intrapersonal Outcomes
The research in this section describes the association between capitalization processes and outcomes that are primarily intrapersonal. The term “capitalization processes” encompasses both capitalization attempts—the act of relating positive events to another person—and perceived responses to capitalization attempts—the perceived response of the individual being told about the events. Neither predictor includes information about the event itself. Accordingly, when examining capitalization
Capitalization Processes and Interpersonal Outcomes
Our model proposes that capitalization processes are linked not only to the intrapersonal outcomes described in the previous section but also to interpersonal outcomes. The research described in this section focuses on the association between capitalization processes and outcomes that are primarily social or interpersonal. Again, we will examine both capitalization attempts and responses to capitalization attempts (both typically and in response to specific exchanges) as predictors.
Paralleling
The heart of perceived responsiveness
Our model proposes that perceived partner responsiveness is at the core of the interpersonal benefits and most of the intrapersonal benefits of capitalization. In the capitalization context, active–constructive responses lead to perceptions of responsiveness; passive or destructive responses do not. Above, we have reviewed how active–constructive responses may convey that the relationship partner understands, supports, and cares for the self. More generally, in other disclosure contexts, what
Summary and Conclusions
Capitalization is a ubiquitous part of daily social life. After all, most human experience takes place in a social context (Reis et al., 2000), and things go right much more often than they go wrong (Gable & Haidt, 2005). The research reviewed in this chapter has consistently shown that people often turn to close others to share their good news. As we have shown, this act of telling others and the response of those others has the potential to multiply the benefits of positive events. These
References (205)
- et al.
Physical attractiveness
Emergent integration in contemporary personality psychology
Journal of Research in Personality
(1996)- et al.
Evidence for bivariate systems: An empirical test of appetition and aversion across domains
Journal of Research in Personality
(2003) - et al.
Witnessing excellence in action: The “other-praising” emotions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration
Journal of Positive Psychology
(2009) - Algoe, S., Gable, S. L., & Maisel, N. C. (in press). It's the Little Things: Everyday Gratitude as a Booster Shot for...
Transference
- et al.
The rules of friendship
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
(1984) - et al.
Self-expansion motivation and including other in the self
- et al.
Couples' shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(2000) - et al.
An experimental approach to social support communications: Interactive coping in close relationships
Bad is stronger than good
Review of General Psychology
Pleasure and pain in doing well, together: An investigation of performance-related affect in close relationships
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Emotional responsiveness, intimacy and capitalization attempts in intimate relationships: A dyadic assessment
Emotional experience in close relationships
Attraction and close relationships
Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Effects of daily stress on negative mood
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Social relationships, personality, and anxiety during a major stressful event
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Invisible support and adjustment to stress
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The paradox of the sincere chameleon: Strategic self-verification in close relationships
Benefit finding and physical health: Positive psychological changes and enhanced allostasis
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment
Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger
A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development
Caregiving behavior is associated with decreased mortality risk
Psychological Science
A four-factor model of perceived control: Avoiding, coping, obtaining, and savoring
Journal of Personality
Using the past to enhance the present: Boosting happiness through positive reminiscence
Journal of Happiness Studies
Supportive communication
Evolutionary social psychology
The attraction paradigm
Emotions
Annual Review of Psychology
Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space
Personality and Social Psychology Review
Emotional processing and motivation: In search of brain mechanisms
Responses to relationship-threatening positive events
Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view
Psychological Review
Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Negative affects deriving from the behavioral approach system
Emotion
The relational self revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life
Psychological Bulletin
Conflict and satisfaction in couples
Understanding people's perceptions of relationships is crucial to understanding their emotional lives
Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold
Journal of the American Medical Association
Is my parent happy for me? Capitalization and the parent–child relationship
A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models
Human nature and the social order
Concordance in the face of a stressful event: When do members of a dyad agree that one person supported the other?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Contingencies of self-worth
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Contingencies of self-worth
Psychological Review
Cited by (336)
A moderated mediation analysis on the influence of social support and cognitive flexibility in predicting mental wellbeing in elite sport
2024, Psychology of Sport and ExerciseResponsiveness in romantic partners’ interactions
2023, Current Opinion in PsychologySupport provision in a digitalized world: The consequences of social sharing across different communication channels
2023, Current Opinion in PsychologyDo targets of ostracism truthfully communicate their emotional reactions to sources?
2023, Acta PsychologicaThe socialization of positive emotions: Implications for physical health and psychological adjustment
2023, Mental Health and Prevention