Windy Dryden (W.D.):
Now imagine that you still have the same absolute belief that you must have a minimum of 11 dollars at all times, and this time you find that you have 12 dollars in your purse. Now, how will you feel? Karen: Relieved. W.D.: Right, or pleased. But holding that same belief that you absolutely must have a minimum of 11 dollars at all times, you think something that leads you to become anxious again. What do you think that thought would be? Karen: That I might lose 2 dollars? W.D.: Right, or you spend 2 dollars or get robbed. Now the point of this example is that all humans, male or female, rich or poor, black or white, now and in the future, will make themselves emotionally disturbed when they don’t get what they believe they must get. And they will also make themselves miserable when they do get it, because of their musts-because even when they must have, they could always lose it. (Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 1990, p 66)
In this example from a seminal training book in the oldest form of cognitive behavior therapy, Rational Emotive and Behavior Therapy (REBT; Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 1990), the authors have suggested that biased appraisals in the form of primary irrational beliefs (Ellis, 1962) such as rigidly appraising getting important things as a necessity (demandingness) result in a particular type of dysfunctionality of positive experiences: negative feelings in positive situations or when our desires are met. However, based on the REBT model of positive emotion (Ellis, 1994) an opposite suggestion was made: demandingness results in rather more intense dysfunctional positive feelings when goals that individuals demand to attain are met (Ellis, 1994). Based on this proposal, we have the following scenario: You don't have $12, and you consider that you always need to have $12 in your pocket. It is a necessity. As a last try, you check your pocket again, and you find that, in fact, you have $12 in it. You will feel excited and euphoric, not just happy. Recent research supports the ABC model of positive emotions (Ellis, 1994), showing that demandingness and secondary biased appraisals are associated with intense and high arousal dysfunctional positive feelings (Tiba et al., 2023a) in response to positive situations and a predisposition to hypo/mania (Tiba et al., 2023b). Based on these findings, the proposal that irrational beliefs may result in negative emotions when goals are met seems to be in contradiction with theoretical and empirical support for the effect of irrational beliefs on positive feelings. Although they appear contradictory, theories and findings from the field of mixed emotions suggested that it may not be at all a contradiction to experience both positive and negative feelings in the same positive situation (Berrios et al., 2015a; Larsen et al., 2001). Thus, it is more likely that individuals who have negative feelings in positive situations will experience positive and negative feelings as well. Most often, we encounter multifaceted situations that activate sometimes conflicting goals. For instance, we are happy about starting to study at a new university, but at the same time, we feel sad about letting go of our close friends. Moreover, other forms of altered emotionality in positive situations have been proposed: neutral feelings (Gasper, 2018). Thus, in positive situations, we may have several types of biased feelings according to the positive-negative valence axis: (1) dysfunctional positive feelings, (2) negative feelings, (3) neutral feelings, and (4) mixed emotions. Given the domain of mixed emotions, the theory and practice of REBT (Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 1990) suggested a complex process for dysfunctional mixed emotions in positive situations: considering a desired situation as a necessity may activate avoidance goals of losing the desired situation when we encounter a positive situation.
We have previously shown that biased appraisals proposed by REBT theory are related to dysfunctional positive feelings (XXXXX). In the present study, starting from early proposals from the practice of REBT (Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 1990) and the field of mixed and neutral feelings, we examined whether biased appraisals in the form of irrational beliefs (Ellis, 1994) are related to: (1) negative feelings; (2) neutral feelings; and (3) mixed feelings in response to imagined positive events. This research has the potential to point to new clinically relevant mechanisms of mixed emotions and expand the REBT theory of well-being and mental health.
Albert Ellis (1957) proposed that responding with biased appraisals to adversity determines dysfunctional feelings and emotional pathology. Ellis (1962) suggested that there are four types of biased appraisals, named irrational beliefs: (1) demandingness or considering attaining goals and desires as a necessity in response to adversity; (2) catastrophizing (adversity is awful and 100% bad); (3) frustration intolerance (intolerance of the adversity); and (4) depreciation beliefs (self, life, and future are worthless). Demandingness is considered a primary form of irrational belief, while catastrophizing, frustration intolerance, and depreciation beliefs are considered secondary irrational beliefs. Each of these irrational beliefs has a positive counterpart: (1) demandingness in response to positive situations; (2) wonderfulizing (positive events are wonderful and 100% good); (3) positive emotion intolerance (positive emotions are so intense that they are unbearable); and (3) appreciation beliefs (self, life, and future are extremely positive) (Tiba et al., 2023a).
Moreover, Ellis (1962) suggested that primary irrational beliefs are distal to dysfunctional emotions and that their effect on emotions is mediated by secondary irrational beliefs, which are proximal determinants of emotion (Ellis, 1962). Previous research has shown that irrational beliefs are types of appraisals (David et al., 2002; David et al., 2019), which can have multiple types of representational formats in our cognitive system (Szentagotai et al., 2015; Tiba & Manea, 2018). Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that irrational beliefs have a large impact on psychopathology (Bridges & Harnish, 2010; Vîslă et al., 2016) and that their change is an important way of treating emotional disorders (David et al., 2018). There is consistent research supporting the role of irrational beliefs in both subclinical and clinical emotional conditions (David et al., 2018; Vîslă et al., 2016). For instance, studies have shown significant relationships between irrational beliefs and depression (De Castella et al., 2013; Taghavi et al., 2006), anxiety disorders (Himle et al., 1989), obsessive-compulsive disorders (Hamidi & Motlagh, 2010), personality disorders (Westphal et al., 2016), stress-related disorders (Hyland et al., 2014), and parenting stress (Tiba et al., 2012), among other relevant conditions (Vîslă et al., 2016). Nonetheless, irrational beliefs and their non-biased counterparts, rational beliefs, have been linked to well-being and psychological health. According to the REBT model of psychological health, rational beliefs foster positive emotions and happiness (Oltean et al., 2019). Instead, individuals irrational beliefs are detrimental to well-being, fostering lower levels of positive emotions and high levels of dysfunctional negative emotions (Oltean et al., 2017; Oltean et al., 2019). Recently, it has been evidenced that dispositionally appraising positive situations with positive irrational beliefs promotes dysfunctional positive emotions and the risk of mania as well (Tiba et al., 2023a). Thus, based on these recent findings, we can delineate multiple ways in which irrational and rational beliefs may influence psychological health: (1) rational beliefs are associated with functional positive emotions; (2) irrational beliefs are associated with dysfunctional negative feelings and low functional positive emotions; and (3) positive irrational beliefs are associated with dysfunctional positive feelings in positive situations. Examining the relationships between irrational beliefs, negative, neutral, and mixed feelings in positive situations may point to new ways in which irrational beliefs may be involved in well-being: they may promote negative, neutral, and mixed emotions in response to positive situations.
Mixed emotions
Mixed emotions are feelings that include experiencing two or more emotions that have the same or opposite valence (Larsen et al., 2001). Oceja and Carrera (2009) proposed four types of mixed emotions: (1) sequential emotions (two emotions, one following the other-primary and secondary emotions with opposed valence); (2) prevalence emotions (reactions to the same event of two opposing emotions, but one more intense than the other), (3) inverse emotions (two emotions with an opposed dynamic, such as an increase in one results in decreases in the other), and (3) highly simultaneous emotions (both emotions have an overlapping dynamics, happy-sad, nostalgia). As there are a multitude of varieties of both positive and negative emotions, mixed emotions appear in a multitude of varieties.
Although the first experimental evidence for mixed emotions dates back more than a century (Kellogg, 1915), over time, scientific tests have proven it to be a robust phenomenon (Berrios et al., 2015b). There is a large consensus that conflicting goals are a common mechanism underlying mixed emotions. Thus, a situation may activate different goals, which in turn result in both positive and negative feelings (Berrios et al., 2015a; Berrios et al., 2017). Several studies suggest a positive effect of mixed feelings on mental health and well being (Berrios et al., 2017; Hershfield et al., 2013). Hershfield et al. (2013) found that higher rates of mixed feelings are associated with a lower rate of physical health symptoms and a lower rate of health degradation (Hershfield et al., 2013). Yet recent research showed a negative effect as well. For instance, the study conducted by Oh (2022) showed that mixed feelings and emotional ambivalence that are experienced by an individual naturally, day by day, were associated with lower levels of psychological well-being and a higher level of burnout. Up until now, results about the effect of mixed feelings appeared to be in contradiction. Previous research linked mixed feelings with conflicting goals and appraisal theories of emotions (Berrios et al., 2015a). Since biased appraisals may be associated with dysfunctional mixed feelings and health costs and non-biased appraisals may be associated with functional mixed feelings and health benefits, examining the role of biased appraisals in mixed feelings may help to clarify these contradictory findings. Yet there has been no research that has investigated the link between mixed feelings and biased appraisals, such as irrational beliefs.
Given the REBT theory of emotion (Ellis, 1994) there are several implications for mixed emotions: (1) biased appraisals such as demandingness may activate opposing goals (needing something to much-intense approach goal may bring the fear of losing it-avoidance goal) and often result in a mixed emotional experience in positive situations, (2) there are both functional and dysfunctional mixed feelings. Thus, mixed emotions may be: (a) functional mixed feelings that include two functional and opposing valenced emotions; and (b) dysfunctional mixed feelings that include at least one dysfunctional positive or negative feeling. Moreover, mixed feelings may involve a combination of both primary (functional and dysfunctional) and secondary (functional and dysfunctional) feelings. Functional mixed feelings are expected to be part of a healthy sense of well-being. On the other hand, dysfunctional mixed feelings may be detrimental to well-being.
Neutral feelings
Neutral feelings, or "feeling nothing in particular" (Gasper et al., 2021), refer to feelings of indifference (Gasper et al., 2021). It is what individuals feel in neutral or usual situations (Gasper et al., 2021). Although their existence has been long debated, recent research has shown the validity of the concept of neutral feelings (Gasper et al., 2019), evidencing both their positive (Gasper et al., 2021) and negative consequences (Gasper & Danube, 2016). Gasper (2018) proposed five types of neutral feelings: minimal affective states (when other feelings are minimal), in-the-middle states (neither positive nor negative), deactivated states (feelings resulting from neutral affect induction procedures that induce deactivation), typical state, and indifferent states (Gasper, 2018).
Several mechanisms have been suggested to underlie each of these different types of neutral feelings. Among these, the most important are progress as expected in regulation theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990), appraisal mechanisms (Yih et al., 2020), and conflicting goals or mixed feelings (Schneider et al., 2016). Of interest, reports of feeling neutral in positive situations are often mistaken for a lack of positive affect or an index of apathy (Gasper et al., 2021). On the contrary, from the perspective of neutral feelings, this kind of “neutral apathy" is rather a type of neutral feeling in response to activating situations, not an apathy mood or feeling numbness (the inability to respond with feelings). Accordingly, we may have different types of neutral feelings in positive situations, which may reflect different mechanisms than a lack of positive emotions, with neutral feelings co-occurring with positive and negative feelings (Gasper et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2016). Based on a theory of no interest or lack of positive emotions for explaining neutral feelings, neutral feelings are not expected to have a relationship with biased appraisals of relevance and congruence or biased secondary appraisals. Instead, if neutral feelings are conceptualized as a type of mixed feelings or middle feelings (Yih et al., 2020), we can observe a role for biased appraisals and a relationship with mixed feelings.
The present study
Data from a previous study investigating positive feelings and the role of irrational and rational positive beliefs in positive emotions were used in the present study (https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3034444/v1). In the present study, we have investigated the relationships between positive irrational beliefs and reports of neutral and negative feelings in positive situations. Based on current methodology for assessing appraisals (Scherer, 2021), participants had to vividly imagine eight unexpected approach-related positive events (e.g., unexpectedly learning it is possible to get a large amount of money/succeed-see Appendix A) happening to them. Then, they were asked to rate the vividness of their imagery and their estimates of how they would appraise each situation by situational positive irrational beliefs and the intensity they would experience for positive, neutral, and negative feelings. Ratings of mixed, negative, and neutral feelings were the subject of analysis in the present study. After rating their reactions to the imagined events, participants completed a hypomania scale (Altman et al., 1997), a scale measuring dispositional positive irrational beliefs (Tiba et al., 2023a), and a scale measuring dispositional irrational beliefs about adversity (DiGiuseppe et al., 2021).
According to proposals based on REBT theory (Dryden & DiGiuseppe, 1990), we expected that irrational beliefs would be associated with negative and/or mixed feelings in positive situations. As neutral feelings may be a form of mixed feelings, we also examined the relationship between irrational beliefs and neutral feelings in positive situations. Furthermore, we expected that the demandingness effect on negative, neutral, and mixed feelings would be mediated by secondary biased appraisals.