Agenda for January 27th

1
(No Transcript)
2
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 Thursdays lecture.

3
Positive Negative Emotion Examining Content
Process Effects

• Johnson Tversky (1983)
• Lerner Keltner (in press)
• Bodenhausen et al. (1994)

4
Presentation by Discussants

• Melissa, Rachel, Reen

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Cognitive-Appraisal Tendencies
Research strategy Compare emotions that are
highly differentiated in their appraisal themes
on judgments/choices that relate to that
appraisal theme.
9
Applying Appraisal Tendency Approach to Judgments
of Risk

• 1 Identify appraisal dimensions that are
  conceptually related to risk
• Control certainty map on to Slovics
  (1987)dread risk and unknown risk
• 2 Select emotions that fall at opposite ends of
  these dimensions
• Fear and anger

10
Risk Taking Study Hypotheses

• Appraisal Tendency
• Fear
• Anger

• Mood-Congruent

11
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 Kahnemans (1981) Asian Disease
  Problem

12
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
13
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
14
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)
15
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)
16
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

17
Hypotheses for Optimism

• Appraisal
  Tendency
• Fear
• Happiness
• Anger

• Mood
• Congruent

18
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
• Weinsteins (1980) unrealistic optimism
  questionnaire

19
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
0
-
1
1
Emotion-tendencies (z-score)
20
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
0
-
1
1
Emotion-tendencies (z-score)
21
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.)

22
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)

23
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)

24
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)

25
Process Effects, Cont.

• Tests of Possible Explanations
• Effort conservation???
• Possibly Accountable subjects less likely to
  stereotype than non-accountable subjects.