CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Emotions and Moral BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Can sadness be good for you?

Forgas, Joseph P·2017·Australian Psychologist
DOI 10.1111/ap.12232
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The subtle relationship between feeling and thinking, affect and cognition has fascinated philosophers and writers since time immemorial, yet, empirical research on this topic was relatively neglected by psychologists until recently. There have been many claims emphasising the beneficial cognitive and behavioural consequences of positive affect. Many recent works suggest that negative affect may also facilitate optimal performance in many situations, consistent with evolutionary theories suggesting the adaptive signalling function of various affective states. This paper reviews traditional and current psychological theories linking affect to social thinking and behaviour. A variety of empirical studies from our laboratory will also be presented, demonstrating that in many situations, negative affect promotes optimal performance in cognitive and social tasks, including tasks such as memory, social judgements, motivation, and strategic interpersonal behaviours. These results will be interpreted in terms of a dual‐process theory that predicts that negative affect promotes a more accommodative, vigilant, and externally focused thinking strategy. The relevance of these findings for recent affect–cognition theories will be discussed, and the practical implications of negative affect promoting improved social thinking and performance in a number of applied fields will be considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ap.12232

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Normative depressed states increase the accuracy of social inferences (depressive realism) and improve social problem-solving.

    “while normative depressed states have been shown to increase the accuracy of social inferences (e.g., depressive realism [49]) and improve social problem-solving [50].”

    From The depressed brain: an evolutionary systems theory (2017) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Forgas, J. P.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Forgas, Joseph P
ORCID
Forgas, Joseph P
Venue
Australian Psychologist
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2017-02-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
3-13
ISSN
  • 0005-0067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-9544
DOI
10.1111/ap.12232
OpenAlex
W2479360461
Cited by
49
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Australian Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
negative affect, sadness, dual-process theory, social thinking, social judgment, memory, motivation, interpersonal behavior, sustained attention, external focus, evolutionary psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review