对情绪有用性的信念是有细微差别的:个人参考程度和情绪价值可预测情绪困扰。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Josh Shulkin, Michael A Kisley, Andrew Lac
{"title":"对情绪有用性的信念是有细微差别的:个人参考程度和情绪价值可预测情绪困扰。","authors":"Josh Shulkin, Michael A Kisley, Andrew Lac","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2024.2391586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The beliefs people hold about emotions are implicated in a variety of outcomes including emotion regulation success and overall well-being. However, research on the dimensions of such beliefs is limited, typically addressing broad beliefs about all emotions and focusing only on their controllability. This study investigated emotion usefulness beliefs, specifically, and further parsed dimensions of personal reference (general vs. personal emotions) and valence (positive vs. negative). Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 343), applying a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA, revealed that participants believed negative emotions in general to be more useful than their own negative emotions, with no such difference emerging for positive emotions. Multiple regression analyses indicated that personal beliefs about emotions better predicted affective distress than general beliefs. Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 531) replicated these findings and employed confirmatory factor analyses to psychometrically assess the distinctiveness of these emotion belief dimensions. Evaluating a two-factor model, four-factor model, and three-factor bifactor model, results showed that both the four-factor and bifactor models fit the data well, whereas the two-factor model did not. These findings suggest that beliefs about emotion in general and beliefs about one's own emotions may not be fundamentally distinct, but rather different dimensions of the same underlying emotion usefulness belief.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beliefs about emotion usefulness are nuanced: degree of personal reference and emotional valence predict affective distress.\",\"authors\":\"Josh Shulkin, Michael A Kisley, Andrew Lac\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02699931.2024.2391586\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The beliefs people hold about emotions are implicated in a variety of outcomes including emotion regulation success and overall well-being. However, research on the dimensions of such beliefs is limited, typically addressing broad beliefs about all emotions and focusing only on their controllability. This study investigated emotion usefulness beliefs, specifically, and further parsed dimensions of personal reference (general vs. personal emotions) and valence (positive vs. negative). Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 343), applying a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA, revealed that participants believed negative emotions in general to be more useful than their own negative emotions, with no such difference emerging for positive emotions. Multiple regression analyses indicated that personal beliefs about emotions better predicted affective distress than general beliefs. Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 531) replicated these findings and employed confirmatory factor analyses to psychometrically assess the distinctiveness of these emotion belief dimensions. Evaluating a two-factor model, four-factor model, and three-factor bifactor model, results showed that both the four-factor and bifactor models fit the data well, whereas the two-factor model did not. These findings suggest that beliefs about emotion in general and beliefs about one's own emotions may not be fundamentally distinct, but rather different dimensions of the same underlying emotion usefulness belief.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition & Emotion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition & Emotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2391586\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2391586","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对情绪所持的信念与各种结果有关,包括情绪调节的成功和整体幸福感。然而,对这些信念的维度的研究非常有限,通常只涉及对所有情绪的广泛信念,并只关注情绪的可控性。本研究特别调查了情绪有用性信念,并进一步解析了个人参照(一般情绪与个人情绪)和情感(积极情绪与消极情绪)两个维度。研究1(N = 343)采用了2 × 2因子方差分析,结果显示,参与者认为一般负面情绪比自己的负面情绪更有用,而正面情绪则没有这种差异。多元回归分析表明,个人情绪信念比一般信念更能预测情感困扰。研究 2(N = 531)复制了这些研究结果,并采用了确认性因子分析,从心理统计学角度评估了这些情绪信念维度的独特性。对双因素模型、四因素模型和三因素双因素模型进行了评估,结果显示,四因素模型和双因素模型都能很好地拟合数据,而双因素模型则不能。这些研究结果表明,对一般情绪的信念和对自身情绪的信念可能并无本质区别,而是同一基本情绪有用性信念的不同维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beliefs about emotion usefulness are nuanced: degree of personal reference and emotional valence predict affective distress.

The beliefs people hold about emotions are implicated in a variety of outcomes including emotion regulation success and overall well-being. However, research on the dimensions of such beliefs is limited, typically addressing broad beliefs about all emotions and focusing only on their controllability. This study investigated emotion usefulness beliefs, specifically, and further parsed dimensions of personal reference (general vs. personal emotions) and valence (positive vs. negative). Study 1 (N = 343), applying a 2 × 2 factorial ANOVA, revealed that participants believed negative emotions in general to be more useful than their own negative emotions, with no such difference emerging for positive emotions. Multiple regression analyses indicated that personal beliefs about emotions better predicted affective distress than general beliefs. Study 2 (N = 531) replicated these findings and employed confirmatory factor analyses to psychometrically assess the distinctiveness of these emotion belief dimensions. Evaluating a two-factor model, four-factor model, and three-factor bifactor model, results showed that both the four-factor and bifactor models fit the data well, whereas the two-factor model did not. These findings suggest that beliefs about emotion in general and beliefs about one's own emotions may not be fundamentally distinct, but rather different dimensions of the same underlying emotion usefulness belief.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
×
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