Explorations in Creepiness: Tolerance for Ambiguity and Susceptibility to "Not Just Right Experiences" Predict the Ease of Getting "Creeped Out".

IF 2.2 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-09 DOI:10.1080/00223980.2024.2366882
Francis T McAndrew, Jonathan E Doriscar, Nicolette T Schmidt, Chris Niebauer
{"title":"Explorations in Creepiness: Tolerance for Ambiguity and Susceptibility to \"Not Just Right Experiences\" Predict the Ease of Getting \"Creeped Out\".","authors":"Francis T McAndrew, Jonathan E Doriscar, Nicolette T Schmidt, Chris Niebauer","doi":"10.1080/00223980.2024.2366882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was designed to explore the role played by ambiguity in the experience of creepiness, as well as the relevance of personality traits for predicting individual differences in susceptibility to getting \"creeped out,\" In an online study, a mixed sample of 278 college undergraduates and adults (60 males, 206 females, 12 nonbinary or chose not to report; Mean age = 31.43, range 18-68) recruited through social network platforms filled out scales measuring their tolerance for ambiguity and their susceptibility to having \"Not Just Right Experiences.\" They then rated 25 images (12 normal, 13 prejudged to be creepy or confusing) on creepiness and several other adjective dimensions. The findings indicated that individuals who were less tolerant of ambiguity and those highly susceptible to not just right experiences perceived ambiguous or creepy persons, places, and objects to be more creepy, confusing and disturbing. Both measures were negatively related to time spent looking at confusing or creepy images, and females were generally more easily creeped out by creepy and confusing images than were males. The results support the conclusion that current models of creepiness are correct; the emotional experience of getting \"creeped out\" does indeed appear to be triggered by the need to resolve ambiguity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2024.2366882","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study was designed to explore the role played by ambiguity in the experience of creepiness, as well as the relevance of personality traits for predicting individual differences in susceptibility to getting "creeped out," In an online study, a mixed sample of 278 college undergraduates and adults (60 males, 206 females, 12 nonbinary or chose not to report; Mean age = 31.43, range 18-68) recruited through social network platforms filled out scales measuring their tolerance for ambiguity and their susceptibility to having "Not Just Right Experiences." They then rated 25 images (12 normal, 13 prejudged to be creepy or confusing) on creepiness and several other adjective dimensions. The findings indicated that individuals who were less tolerant of ambiguity and those highly susceptible to not just right experiences perceived ambiguous or creepy persons, places, and objects to be more creepy, confusing and disturbing. Both measures were negatively related to time spent looking at confusing or creepy images, and females were generally more easily creeped out by creepy and confusing images than were males. The results support the conclusion that current models of creepiness are correct; the emotional experience of getting "creeped out" does indeed appear to be triggered by the need to resolve ambiguity.

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
令人毛骨悚然的探索:对模棱两可的容忍度和对 "不尽人意的经历 "的敏感性预示着 "令人毛骨悚然 "的难易程度。
本研究旨在探索模糊性在令人毛骨悚然的体验中所扮演的角色,以及人格特质在预测个体对 "令人毛骨悚然 "的易感性差异方面的相关性。在一项在线研究中,278 名大学本科生和成年人(60 名男性,206 名女性,12 名非二元或选择不报告;平均年龄 = 31.43,范围 18-68)填写了量表,测量他们对模棱两可的容忍度和对 "不恰如其分的经历 "的易感性。然后,他们对 25 张图片(12 张正常,13 张被预判为令人毛骨悚然或令人困惑)的令人毛骨悚然程度和其他几个形容词维度进行评分。研究结果表明,对模棱两可的容忍度较低的人和极易受到 "不恰如其分的体验 "影响的人认为模棱两可或令人毛骨悚然的人、地点和物体更令人毛骨悚然、困惑和不安。这两项测量结果都与观看令人困惑或毛骨悚然的图像所花费的时间呈负相关,而且女性通常比男性更容易被令人毛骨悚然和困惑的图像所吓倒。这些结果支持了目前关于令人毛骨悚然的模型是正确的这一结论;"令人毛骨悚然 "的情绪体验似乎确实是由解决模糊性的需要引发的。
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
Journal of Psychology
Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychology is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes empirical research and theoretical articles in applied areas of psychology, including: Behavioral Psychology Clinical Psychology Cognitive Psychology Counseling Psychology Cultural Psychology Economic Psychology Educational Psychology Environmental Psychology Ethics in Psychology Family Psychology and Couples Psychology Forensic Psychology Health Psychology Industrial and Personnel Psychology Managerial and Leadership Psychology Measurement/Assessment Professional Practice Psychology of Religion Psychotherapy School Psychology Social Psychology Sport Psychology Work, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
期刊最新文献
"I Am Easily Bored." Analysis of a Single Item Measure of Boredom. Cyberbullying Experiences: Whether and How Do the Need for Popularity and Emotional Intelligence Dimensions Affect Them? Relationship between Filial Piety and Life Satisfaction among Young Adults in Malaysia and the UK: The Mediating Role of Perfectionism. "Ours": Understanding Collective Psychological Ownership. Exploring the Associations Between Early Maladaptive Schemas and Interpersonal Attraction: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Lebanese Female University Students.
×
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