Is it better to be happy or right? Examining the relative role of the pragmatic and epistemic imperatives in momentary affective evaluations.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1037/emo0001349
Inon Raz, Niv Reggev, Michael Gilead
{"title":"Is it better to be happy or right? Examining the relative role of the pragmatic and epistemic imperatives in momentary affective evaluations.","authors":"Inon Raz, Niv Reggev, Michael Gilead","doi":"10.1037/emo0001349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>According to research highlighting the importance of predictions, the confirmation of expectations may be a positively-laden experience. A strong test of this principle is the case of the \"doomsayer's delight\": the possibility that belief confirmation can be rewarding even when negative expectations are realized. In order to investigate this idea, we conducted two high-powered experiments examining people's immediate affective reactions following exposure to expected or unexpected positive and negative stimuli. The results show that people feel significantly worse when their pessimistic expectations are confirmed than when their optimistic expectations are violated. This finding was not moderated by several theoretically relevant individual difference measures or temporal dynamics. Findings from this study contribute to our understanding of the interplay between epistemic and pragmatic motivations in guiding emotional responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001349","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to research highlighting the importance of predictions, the confirmation of expectations may be a positively-laden experience. A strong test of this principle is the case of the "doomsayer's delight": the possibility that belief confirmation can be rewarding even when negative expectations are realized. In order to investigate this idea, we conducted two high-powered experiments examining people's immediate affective reactions following exposure to expected or unexpected positive and negative stimuli. The results show that people feel significantly worse when their pessimistic expectations are confirmed than when their optimistic expectations are violated. This finding was not moderated by several theoretically relevant individual difference measures or temporal dynamics. Findings from this study contribute to our understanding of the interplay between epistemic and pragmatic motivations in guiding emotional responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

快乐好还是正确好?研究实用主义和认识论在瞬间情感评价中的相对作用。
根据强调预测重要性的研究,预期的确认可能是一种积极的体验。末日喜悦 "就是对这一原理的有力验证:即使消极的预期实现了,信念的确认也可能带来回报。为了研究这一观点,我们进行了两项高能实验,考察人们在受到预期或意外的正面和负面刺激后的即时情感反应。结果表明,当人们的悲观预期得到证实时,他们的情绪会明显比乐观预期落空时更糟糕。这一发现并没有受到几种理论上相关的个体差异测量或时间动态的调节。这项研究的结果有助于我们理解认识论动机和实用主义动机在引导情绪反应方面的相互作用。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信