The manipulation of affect: A meta-analysis of affect induction procedures.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2020-04-01 Epub Date: 2020-01-23 DOI:10.1037/bul0000224
Dana L Joseph, Micaela Y Chan, Samantha J Heintzelman, Louis Tay, Ed Diener, Victoria S Scotney
{"title":"The manipulation of affect: A meta-analysis of affect induction procedures.","authors":"Dana L Joseph,&nbsp;Micaela Y Chan,&nbsp;Samantha J Heintzelman,&nbsp;Louis Tay,&nbsp;Ed Diener,&nbsp;Victoria S Scotney","doi":"10.1037/bul0000224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Affect inductions have become essential for testing theories of affect and for conducting experimental research on the effects of mood and emotion. The current review takes stock of the vast body of existing literature on affect induction procedures (AIPs; also referred to as mood inductions) to evaluate the effectiveness of affect inductions as research tools and to test theories of affect (e.g., the bipolarity hypothesis, negativity bias, positivity offset, and theories of emotionality and gender) using meta-analytic data. In doing so, we seek to address whether AIPs are effective for inducing affective states, what conditions maximize their effectiveness, for which emotions they are most effective, for whom they are most effective, and whether affect induction findings can provide insight into theories of affect. A meta-analysis of 874 samples and 53,509 participants suggests that affect inductions are effective on average (δ = 1.32), but this effectiveness varies with the type of affect induction, the emotion being induced, and the gender of the participants. Further, results indicate coupled activation where the induction of positive (negative) emotions leads to a corresponding reduction in negative (positive) emotions, which provides support for the bipolar continuum of positive and negative affect. Results also revealed a negativity bias in which individuals display stronger reactions to negative stimuli than positive stimuli. A practical guide in the choice of affect induction procedures for researchers is presented and implications for emotion theory are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"67","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000224","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 67

Abstract

Affect inductions have become essential for testing theories of affect and for conducting experimental research on the effects of mood and emotion. The current review takes stock of the vast body of existing literature on affect induction procedures (AIPs; also referred to as mood inductions) to evaluate the effectiveness of affect inductions as research tools and to test theories of affect (e.g., the bipolarity hypothesis, negativity bias, positivity offset, and theories of emotionality and gender) using meta-analytic data. In doing so, we seek to address whether AIPs are effective for inducing affective states, what conditions maximize their effectiveness, for which emotions they are most effective, for whom they are most effective, and whether affect induction findings can provide insight into theories of affect. A meta-analysis of 874 samples and 53,509 participants suggests that affect inductions are effective on average (δ = 1.32), but this effectiveness varies with the type of affect induction, the emotion being induced, and the gender of the participants. Further, results indicate coupled activation where the induction of positive (negative) emotions leads to a corresponding reduction in negative (positive) emotions, which provides support for the bipolar continuum of positive and negative affect. Results also revealed a negativity bias in which individuals display stronger reactions to negative stimuli than positive stimuli. A practical guide in the choice of affect induction procedures for researchers is presented and implications for emotion theory are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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
情感的操纵:情感诱导过程的元分析。
情感归纳法已经成为检验情感理论和进行情绪和情感影响实验研究的必要手段。当前的综述评估了大量关于影响诱导程序的现有文献(AIPs;也被称为情绪诱导)来评估情感诱导作为研究工具的有效性,并使用元分析数据来测试情感理论(例如,双极性假说,消极偏见,积极抵消,情绪和性别理论)。在此过程中,我们试图解决AIPs是否有效地诱导情感状态,什么条件下最大限度地提高其有效性,对哪种情绪最有效,对谁最有效,以及影响诱导的发现是否可以为情感理论提供见解。对874个样本和53,509名参与者的荟萃分析表明,平均而言,情感诱导是有效的(δ = 1.32),但这种有效性随着情感诱导的类型、被诱导的情绪和参与者的性别而变化。此外,研究结果表明,积极(消极)情绪的诱导会导致消极(积极)情绪的相应减少,这为积极和消极情绪的双相连续体提供了支持。结果还揭示了消极偏见,即个体对消极刺激的反应比积极刺激更强烈。为研究人员提供了情感归纳程序选择的实用指南,并对情感理论的启示进行了讨论。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c) 2020 APA,版权所有)。
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
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Supporting the status quo is weakly associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of the palliative function of ideology across social status groups using a meta-analytic approach. When connecting with LGBTQ+ communities helps and why it does: A meta-analysis of the relationship between connectedness and health-related outcomes. Who am I? A second-order meta-analytic review of correlates of the self in childhood and adolescence. Defining social reward: A systematic review of human and animal studies.
×
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