Individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES) display increased attentiveness to others and greater prosocial behavior compared to individuals of higher SES. We situate these effects within Pepper & Nettle's contextually appropriate response framework of SES. We argue that increased prosocial behavior is a contextually adaptive response for lower-SES individuals that serves to increase control over their more threatening social environments.

Pepper & Nettle offer a nuanced and humane view on poverty that should be required reading for policy makers, particularly those interested in “behaviour change” policy. We suggest, however, that the emphasis on “future-discounting” in this paper downplays the importance of differences in the payoffs to behaviours in the present and how these payoffs may be realised in different currencies.

Most research cited throughout Pepper & Nettle's (P&N's) target article is correlational and suffers from a serious genetic confound that renders it of little evidentiary value. Of correlational findings that are not confounded, P&N ignore examples that contradict their model. Further, P&N's claim that evolutionary models explaining between-species differences in behaviour can be used to understand that corresponding individual differences lack any evidence.

We suggest that steep intertemporal discounting in individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) may arise as a rational metacognitive adaptation to experiencing planning and control failures in long-term plans. Low SES individuals' plans fail more frequently because they operate close to budgetary boundaries, in turn because they consistently operate with limited budgets of money, status, trust, or other forms of social utility.

Pepper & Nettle make a compelling case for how evolutionary thinking can help explain behaviours that cluster with deprivation. The role of extrinsic mortality risk in driving behaviour is probably important, but strong evidence is still lacking. By thinking carefully about behaviours seemingly at odds with an evolutionary life history perspective, we can gain important insights that will help refine theory.

We are grateful to have received so many insightful commentaries from interested colleagues regarding our proposed behavioural constellation of deprivation (BCD) and our thoughts on its causes and consequences. In this response article, we offer some clarifications regarding our perspective and tackle some common misperceptions, including, for example, assumptions that the BCD is adaptive and that it should include all behaviours that vary with socioeconomic status. We then welcome some excellent proposals for extensions and modifications of our ideas, such as the conceptualisation of the BCD as a risk-management strategy and the calls for a greater focus on strengths and differential investment rather than deficits and disinvestment. Finally, we highlight some insightful explorations of the implications of our ideas for ethics, policy, and practice.

Why are negative emotions so central in art reception far beyond tragedy? Revisiting classical aesthetics in the light of recent psychological research, we present a novel model to explain this much discussed (apparent) paradox. We argue that negative emotions are an important resource for the arts in general, rather than a special license for exceptional art forms only. The underlying rationale is that negative emotions have been shown to be particularly powerful in securing attention, intense emotional involvement, and high memorability, and hence is precisely what artworks strive for. Two groups of processing mechanisms are identified that conjointly adopt the particular powers of negative emotions for art's purposes. The first group consists of psychological distancing mechanisms that are activated along with the cognitive schemata of art, representation, and fiction. These schemata imply personal safety and control over continuing or discontinuing exposure to artworks, thereby preventing negative emotions from becoming outright incompatible with expectations of enjoyment. This distancing sets the stage for a second group of processing components that allow art recipients to positively embrace the experiencing of negative emotions, thereby rendering art reception more intense, more interesting, more emotionally moving, more profound, and occasionally even more beautiful. These components include compositional interplays of positive and negative emotions, the effects of aesthetic virtues of using the media of (re)presentation (musical sound, words/language, color, shapes) on emotion perception, and meaning-making efforts. Moreover, our Distancing-Embracing model proposes that concomitant mixed emotions often help integrate negative emotions into altogether pleasurable trajectories.

“Negative” emotions are never purely negative. They attract attention at the very least and often stay attractive enough to make rehearsing them an addictive activity. As the authors point out, they also counteract a relentless tendency for positive emotions to become boring. Analysis in terms of reward suggests why this tendency occurs and how symbiosis with negative emotions may arise, in art and in life.

Menninghaus et al. pose two open-ended questions: To what extent do formal elements of art elicit negative affect, and do artists try to elicit this response in a theory-based or intuitive manner? For popular movies, we argue that the consideration of their construction is prior to the consideration of the experience that they evoke.

In the Distancing-Embracing model, an explanation is proposed for the apparent paradox that is the enjoyment of negative emotional states in art reception. Here, we argue for the advantages of grounding the psychological dynamics described in the model in established and empirically testable frameworks of brain functioning by thinking of art reception as an embodied experience guided by predictive coding.

We contest the claim that musically induced sadness cannot be enjoyable in itself. This possibility is supported by closer attention to a musical experience as well as cases of affective reversal, such as the “hedonic flip” of painful feelings. We propose that the affective reversal of sadness in music is due to the high granularity of musically induced emotion.

The proposed model overlooks the contribution of a relational/prosocial dimension to the enjoyment of negative emotion in art reception. Negative experiences have a unique capacity to build social bonds and may also increase motivation to “connect” with the artist. This affiliative motivation ensures that people experience an artwork as more emotional, more intense, more interesting, and ultimately more rewarding.

Based on arguments from both philosophical and empirical aesthetics, we hereby propose that the enjoyment of negative emotions in art and fiction is distinct from the immediate pleasure deriving from sensory features, because it requires a conscious, intentional attitude toward the object. This attitude is linked with the compelling goal of providing a judgment of liking, beauty, perfection, or similar.

The Distancing-Embracing model does not have the conceptual resources to explain artistic misunderstandings and the emotional consequences of historical learning in the arts. Specifically, it suggests implausible predictions about emotional distancing caused by art schemata (e.g., misunderstandings of artistic intentions and contexts). These problems show the need for further inquiries into how historical contextualization modulates negative emotions in the arts.

The Distancing-Embracing model proposes that negative emotions are constitutive of aesthetic experiences. This move is welcome and adds depth to empirical aesthetics. However, the model's emphasis on temporality challenges how best to think of static art forms. I suggest that “decisive” and “distilled” moments dilate time in the viewer's mind and might allow the model to accommodate photography and painting.

The Distancing-Embracing model proposes that negative emotions embedded in literary works can be rewarding. This is consistent with a holistic ontology in the German Romantic tradition. However, the application of cognitive psychology to explain experiences of aesthetic pleasure is problematic because it is founded on a mechanistic Enlightenment epistemology. The appreciation of negative emotions requires cognitive elaboration and closure, whereas hedonistic reward is contingent on the reader's needs, in the moment, for pleasure or distraction.

Despite denials in the target article, the Distancing-Embracing model appeals to compensatory ideas in explaining the appeal of artworks that elicit negative affect. The model also appeals to the deflationary effects of psychological distancing. Having pointed to the famous rejection in the 1960s of the view that aesthetic experience involves psychological distancing, I suggest that “distance” functions here as a weak metaphor that cannot sustain the explanatory burden the theory demands of it.

I argue that the Embracing factor cannot be adequately conceptualized without taking into account the regulatory power of the social sharing of emotions. Humans tend to share their negative emotions with close others, and they benefit from it. I outline how this mechanism works in art reception by regulating and transforming negative emotions into positive experiences.

In the light of recent findings on the nature of boredom, I argue that boredom is a potentially useful emotion in art reception and show how the Distancing-Embracing model can be applied to boredom.

We elaborate on the role of individual differences in the processing mechanisms outlined by the Distancing-Embracing model. The role of openness is apparent in appreciating meaning-making art that elicits interest, feeling moved, and mixed emotions. The influence of sensation seeking is likely to manifest in thrill-chasing art that draws on the arousing interplay of positive and negative emotions.