If you were happy and you know it, clap your hands! Testing the peak-end rule for retrospective judgments of well-being in everyday life

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Journal of Personality Pub Date : 2024-03-18 DOI:10.1177/08902070241235969
Julian Scharbert, Katharina Utesch, Thomas Reiter, Julian ter Horst, Maarten H. W. van Zalk, Mitja D Back, Richard Rau
{"title":"If you were happy and you know it, clap your hands! Testing the peak-end rule for retrospective judgments of well-being in everyday life","authors":"Julian Scharbert, Katharina Utesch, Thomas Reiter, Julian ter Horst, Maarten H. W. van Zalk, Mitja D Back, Richard Rau","doi":"10.1177/08902070241235969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The experience sampling method (ESM) and comparable assessment approaches are increasingly becoming popular tools for well-being research. In part, they are so popular because they represent more direct approaches for assessing individuals’ experienced well-being during a specified period, whereas one-time, retrospective evaluations of that episode are believed to introduce systematic biases. Along these lines, the peak-end rule states that the most extreme and recent sensations of an episode disproportionally influence retrospective well-being judgments. However, it has yet to be determined whether such systematic effects found in experimental laboratory studies generalize to retrospective judgments of well-being in everyday life as captured in ESM studies. Across four ESM samples (overall N = 1,889, total measurements = 131,575), we found that retrospective well-being judgments were disproportionately influenced by the peak and end experiences from the assessment period. However, these effects depended on the item framing of the retrospective judgment (global vs. more specific framings) and broad versus narrow conceptualizations of peaks and ends (states, days, and weeks), pointing toward potential ways to mitigate peak/end effects. Our findings emphasize the importance of differentiating between momentary and retrospective well-being assessments and selecting an appropriate measurement approach on the basis of these conceptual considerations.","PeriodicalId":51376,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Personality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241235969","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The experience sampling method (ESM) and comparable assessment approaches are increasingly becoming popular tools for well-being research. In part, they are so popular because they represent more direct approaches for assessing individuals’ experienced well-being during a specified period, whereas one-time, retrospective evaluations of that episode are believed to introduce systematic biases. Along these lines, the peak-end rule states that the most extreme and recent sensations of an episode disproportionally influence retrospective well-being judgments. However, it has yet to be determined whether such systematic effects found in experimental laboratory studies generalize to retrospective judgments of well-being in everyday life as captured in ESM studies. Across four ESM samples (overall N = 1,889, total measurements = 131,575), we found that retrospective well-being judgments were disproportionately influenced by the peak and end experiences from the assessment period. However, these effects depended on the item framing of the retrospective judgment (global vs. more specific framings) and broad versus narrow conceptualizations of peaks and ends (states, days, and weeks), pointing toward potential ways to mitigate peak/end effects. Our findings emphasize the importance of differentiating between momentary and retrospective well-being assessments and selecting an appropriate measurement approach on the basis of these conceptual considerations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如果你很快乐,而且你知道,那就拍拍手吧!测试日常生活中幸福感回溯判断的峰值结束规则
经验取样法(ESM)和可比评估方法正日益成为幸福感研究的流行工具。它们之所以如此受欢迎,部分原因是它们代表了一种更直接的方法,用于评估个人在特定时期内的幸福体验,而对该事件的一次性、回顾性评估被认为会带来系统性偏差。根据这一思路,"峰终法则 "指出,某一事件中最极端和最近的感觉会不成比例地影响对幸福感的回顾性判断。然而,在实验室实验研究中发现的这种系统性影响是否会普遍适用于 ESM 研究中所捕捉到的日常生活中对幸福感的回顾性判断,这一点还有待确定。在四个ESM样本中(总样本数=1,889,测量总数=131,575),我们发现幸福感的回顾性判断受到评估期间的高峰期和结束期体验的影响过大。然而,这些影响取决于回顾性判断的项目框架(全局框架与更具体的框架),以及对高峰和终点(状态、天数和周)的广义与狭义的概念化,从而指出了减轻高峰/终点影响的潜在方法。我们的研究结果强调了区分瞬间幸福感评估和回顾性幸福感评估的重要性,以及在这些概念考虑的基础上选择适当测量方法的重要性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Personality
European Journal of Personality PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
8.50%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: It is intended that the journal reflects all areas of current personality psychology. The Journal emphasizes (1) human individuality as manifested in cognitive processes, emotional and motivational functioning, and their physiological and genetic underpinnings, and personal ways of interacting with the environment, (2) individual differences in personality structure and dynamics, (3) studies of intelligence and interindividual differences in cognitive functioning, and (4) development of personality differences as revealed by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
期刊最新文献
Long-Term Advantages of Adolescent Optimism: Nonlinear Associations With Adult Outcomes and its Protective Role in Buffering Socioeconomic Risk When and why do individuals high in narcissistic rivalry attain social status? How much can personality predict prosocial behavior? Personalideer: A comprehensive review of personality studies in cervids Perceptions of a good life: Associations with culture, age, wellbeing, and health.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1