1 / 25

Announcements for April 18

Announcements for April 18. Papers due at start of class on Thursday. Class will meet in 223D Porter Hall. Come prepared to describe your paper to the class in a 3-minute summary (snacks provided!). Paper preparation: Be sure to follow “5 tips” from last Thursday’s lecture.

jaegar
Download Presentation

Announcements for April 18

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Announcements for April 18 • Papers due at start of class on Thursday. • Class will meet in 223D Porter Hall. Come prepared to describe your paper to the class in a 3-minute summary (snacks provided!). • Paper preparation: Be sure to follow “5 tips” from last Thursday’s lecture. Week 13, Part 1

  2. Positive & Negative Emotion: Examining Content & Process Effects Johnson & Tversky (1983) Lerner & Keltner (in press) Bodenhausen et al. (1994)

  3. Presentation by Discussants • Melissa, Rachel, & Reen Week 13, Part 1

  4. Content Effects • Valence Theories: • Main Hypothesis: • Positive emotions trigger optimistic judgments/choices & negative emotoins trigger pessimistic/judgments choices. • Possible explanations for effect: • Affect-as-information (direct transfer) • Affect priming (indirect influence on cognitive processes) • Example: Johnson & Tversky Week 13, Part 1

  5. Content Effects • Appraisal-Tendency Theory: • Main Hypothesis: • Emotions trigger a proclivity to perceive new information in ways that are consistent with the original appraisal dimensions of an emotion (Lerner & Keltner, in press). Valence is only one dimension, not necessarily the most important one. • Possible explanation for effect: • Appraisal tendency • Proponents: Lerner & Keltner Week 13, Part 1

  6. Cognitive-Appraisal Theory •Specific emotions are defined by their variation along six cognitive appraisal dimensions (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985): •Certainty (low, high) •Control (individual, situational) •Responsibility (self, other) •Attention (low, high) •Pleasantness (pos., neg.) •Effort (low, high) •Each emotion has core appraisal themes Week 13, Part 1

  7. Cognitive-Appraisal Tendencies • Research strategy: Compare emotions that are highly differentiated in their appraisal themes on judgments/choices that relate to that appraisal theme. Week 13, Part 1

  8. Applying Appraisal Tendency Approach to Judgments of Risk • 1: Identify appraisal dimensions that are conceptually related to risk: • Control & certainty map on to Slovic’s (1987)“dread risk” and “unknown risk” • 2: Select emotions that fall at opposite ends of these dimensions • Fear and anger Week 13, Part 1

  9. AppraisalTendency Fear Anger Mood-Congruent Risk Taking Study: Hypotheses Week 13, Part 1

  10. Risk Taking Study: Method • N = 75 • Ostensibly separate studies • “Study A” Same emotion measures as in Study 1 • Reliability stable: Anger = .81, Fear = .91 • “Study B” Manipulated gain/loss frame • Tversky and Kahneman’s (1981) “Asian Disease Problem” Week 13, Part 1

  11. Gain frame Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Program B 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved & 2/3 probability that no people will be saved Program A 200 people will be saved Which of the two programs would you favor, and by how much? Very Much Prefer A Very Much Prefer B Much Prefer A Slightly Prefer A Slightly Prefer B Much Prefer B 1 2 3 4 5 6 M = 3.0 Risk-Averse: Take the certain gain

  12. Loss frame Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Program B 1/3 probability that no one will die & 2/3 probability that 600 people will die Program A 400 people will die Which of the two programs would you favor, and by how much? Very Much Prefer A Much Prefer A Much Prefer B Very Much Prefer B Slightly Prefer A Slightly Prefer B 1 2 3 4 5 6 Risk-Seeking: Avoid the certain loss M = 3.9

  13. Loss Domain 0 . 5 b = .36* 0 . 2 5 Risk-seeking (z-score) 0 A n g e r F e a r - 0 . 2 5 b = .23 * - 1 1 0 - 0 . 5 Emotion-tendencies (z-score)

  14. 0 . 5 Gain Domain 0 . 2 5 b = -.14 Risk-seeking (z-score) A n g e r 0 F e a r b = .10 - 0 . 2 5 - 0 . 5 - 1 1 0 Emotion-tendencies (z-score)

  15. Study Goals • Two goals: Increase stringency • 1: Test appraisal tendency hypothesis in a domain where mood-congruent models and conventional wisdom predict valence effects • 2: Test hypothesis in the context of a positive emotion -- happiness -- that shares the same core appraisal themes of certainty and individual control as anger Week 13, Part 1

  16. AppraisalTendency Fear Happiness Anger Mood Congruent Hypotheses for Optimism Week 13, Part 1

  17. Optimism Study: Method • N = 601 • Ostensibly separate studies • “Study A” Emotion measures • Fear: same as before, alpha = .89 • Anger: only Spielberger (1996), alpha = .84 • Happiness: Underwood & Froming (1980), alpha = .81 • “Study B” Optimism measure • Weinstein’s (1980) unrealistic optimism questionnaire Week 13, Part 1

  18. Support for Both Hypotheses: Appraisal Tendency & Mood-Congruent 0 . 5 b = . 38* 0 . 2 5 b = .15* 0 Optimism (z-score) - 0 . 2 5 Fear Happiness - 0 . 5 - 1 0 1 Emotion-tendencies (z-score)

  19. Support For Appraisal Tendency Hypothesis 0 . 5 b = . 38* 0 . 2 5 b = .15* Optimism (z-score) b = .13* 0 A n g e r - 0 . 2 5 F e a r H a p p i n e ss - 0 . 5 - 1 0 1 Emotion-tendencies (z-score)

  20. Process Effects • Main Hypothesis (Bodenhausen et al./Forgas): • Pos. emotions, such as happiness, trigger heuristic thought • Example: • Happy people more likely to rely on stereotypes (Bodenhausen et al.) Week 13, Part 1

  21. Process Effects, cont. • Possible explanations for effects: • Preoccupation with pleasing events constraines capacity for systematic thought • Disruptive arousal or excitement constrains systematic thought • “Effort conservation”: happy people not motivated to engage in cognitive effort, unless tasks have relavence to well-being. (Similar to “mood maintenance” idea) Week 13, Part 1

  22. Process Effects, Cont. • Tests of Possible Explanations: • Preoccupation with pleasing events???? • No: Mood inductions with various degrees of cognitve content all produce same results: • Memories of happy events (Study 1) • Facial feedback (Study 2) • Pleasant music (Study 3) Week 13, Part 1

  23. Process Effects, Cont. • Tests of Possible Explanations: • Arousal constrains processing??? • No: Excited happy people do not stereotype more than do calm, happy people (music study) Week 13, Part 1

  24. Process Effects, Cont. • Tests of Possible Explanations: • Effort conservation??? • Possibly: Accountable subjects less likely to stereotype than non-accountable subjects. Week 13, Part 1

More Related