“啊哈!”“哦,是的!”:情绪如何影响顿悟体验

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics Pub Date : 2023-09-30 DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2023-3-428-444
Ekaterina А. Valueva, Nadezhda M. Lapteva
{"title":"“啊哈!”“哦,是的!”:情绪如何影响顿悟体验","authors":"Ekaterina А. Valueva, Nadezhda M. Lapteva","doi":"10.17323/1813-8918-2023-3-428-444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Besides classical “Aha!” moments after successful solutions, researchers have recently examined the “Oh yes!” phenomenon, which occurs when participants are presented with ready-made answers. We investigated the influence of emotional state on insight ratings in these two situations. We propose two alternative models to predict the impact of emotional state on the likelihood of experiencing “Aha!” and “Oh yes!” moments. The first model is based on the feelings-as-information framework and predicts that a generally more positive mood can be attributed by participants to positive emotions from insight. Participants, interpreting their positive state, believe that it is due to insight and will be more likely to experience both “Aha!” and “Oh yes!” insights. The second hypothesis is based on the attribution theory and connects the evaluation of insight with causal attribution. The causes of failure are attributed to external circumstances, while the causes of success are attributed to internal factors. The prediction aligns with the first hypothesis in the case of correct solutions (success situations). However, in the case of unsuccessful solutions (failure situations), the prediction is opposite. We conducted a study using anagrams as the problem-solving task and employed mood-inducing videos to manipulate the participants' emotional state. Question naires assessing participants' states revealed that our interventions improved the participants' mood, reduced anxiety and fatigue. The results of the analysis supported the second hypothesis. We discuss that the mechanisms through which emotional state influences insight ratings may vary depending on the type of insight and may be related to different attentional focuses, decision-making strategies, or emotional congruence effects.","PeriodicalId":44468,"journal":{"name":"Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“AHA!” AND “OH YES!”: HOW EMOTIONS AFFECT INSIGHT EXPERIENCE\",\"authors\":\"Ekaterina А. Valueva, Nadezhda M. Lapteva\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1813-8918-2023-3-428-444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Besides classical “Aha!” moments after successful solutions, researchers have recently examined the “Oh yes!” phenomenon, which occurs when participants are presented with ready-made answers. We investigated the influence of emotional state on insight ratings in these two situations. We propose two alternative models to predict the impact of emotional state on the likelihood of experiencing “Aha!” and “Oh yes!” moments. The first model is based on the feelings-as-information framework and predicts that a generally more positive mood can be attributed by participants to positive emotions from insight. Participants, interpreting their positive state, believe that it is due to insight and will be more likely to experience both “Aha!” and “Oh yes!” insights. The second hypothesis is based on the attribution theory and connects the evaluation of insight with causal attribution. The causes of failure are attributed to external circumstances, while the causes of success are attributed to internal factors. The prediction aligns with the first hypothesis in the case of correct solutions (success situations). However, in the case of unsuccessful solutions (failure situations), the prediction is opposite. We conducted a study using anagrams as the problem-solving task and employed mood-inducing videos to manipulate the participants' emotional state. Question naires assessing participants' states revealed that our interventions improved the participants' mood, reduced anxiety and fatigue. The results of the analysis supported the second hypothesis. We discuss that the mechanisms through which emotional state influences insight ratings may vary depending on the type of insight and may be related to different attentional focuses, decision-making strategies, or emotional congruence effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2023-3-428-444\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2023-3-428-444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

除了经典的“啊哈!”,研究人员最近检查了“哦,是的!”的现象,当参与者看到现成的答案时,就会出现这种情况。在这两种情况下,我们考察了情绪状态对洞察力评分的影响。我们提出了两种替代模型来预测情绪状态对体验“啊哈!和“哦,是的!””时刻。第一个模型是基于“感觉即信息”的框架,并预测参与者通常更积极的情绪可以归因于来自洞察力的积极情绪。参与者在解释他们的积极状态时,认为这是由于洞察力,并且更有可能体验到“啊哈!和“哦,是的!””的见解。第二种假说以归因理论为基础,将内省评价与因果归因联系起来。失败的原因归因于外部环境,而成功的原因归因于内部因素。在正确解决方案(成功情况)的情况下,预测与第一个假设一致。然而,在不成功的解决方案(失败情况)的情况下,预测是相反的。我们采用字谜作为解决问题的任务,并使用情绪诱导视频来操纵参与者的情绪状态。评估参与者状态的问卷显示,我们的干预改善了参与者的情绪,减少了焦虑和疲劳。分析的结果支持第二个假设。我们讨论了情绪状态影响洞察力评级的机制可能因洞察力的类型而异,并可能与不同的注意焦点、决策策略或情绪一致性效应有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
“AHA!” AND “OH YES!”: HOW EMOTIONS AFFECT INSIGHT EXPERIENCE
Besides classical “Aha!” moments after successful solutions, researchers have recently examined the “Oh yes!” phenomenon, which occurs when participants are presented with ready-made answers. We investigated the influence of emotional state on insight ratings in these two situations. We propose two alternative models to predict the impact of emotional state on the likelihood of experiencing “Aha!” and “Oh yes!” moments. The first model is based on the feelings-as-information framework and predicts that a generally more positive mood can be attributed by participants to positive emotions from insight. Participants, interpreting their positive state, believe that it is due to insight and will be more likely to experience both “Aha!” and “Oh yes!” insights. The second hypothesis is based on the attribution theory and connects the evaluation of insight with causal attribution. The causes of failure are attributed to external circumstances, while the causes of success are attributed to internal factors. The prediction aligns with the first hypothesis in the case of correct solutions (success situations). However, in the case of unsuccessful solutions (failure situations), the prediction is opposite. We conducted a study using anagrams as the problem-solving task and employed mood-inducing videos to manipulate the participants' emotional state. Question naires assessing participants' states revealed that our interventions improved the participants' mood, reduced anxiety and fatigue. The results of the analysis supported the second hypothesis. We discuss that the mechanisms through which emotional state influences insight ratings may vary depending on the type of insight and may be related to different attentional focuses, decision-making strategies, or emotional congruence effects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics was established by the National Research University — Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2004 and is administered by the School of Psychology of HSE. The Journal publishes articles written by Russian and foreign researchers presenting original positions in academic and applied psychology, analytical reviews, short reports focused on empirical studies, and information about current scientific events in Russia and the rest of the world. Principal themes of the journal include: -Methodology, history, and theory of psychology -Research approaches and methods in psychology -New tools for psychological assessment -Interdisciplinary studies connecting psychology with economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, and other sciences -New achievements and trends in cognitive psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology, neuroscience -Models and methods of practice in organizations and individual work -Studies in personological approach, combining theoretical, empirical, hermeneutic, and counselling work on personality -Bridging the gap between science and practice, psychological problems associated with innovations -Discussions on pressing issues in fundamental and applied research within psychology and related sciences The primary audience of the journal includes researchers and practitioners specializing in psychology, sociology, cultural studies, education, neuroscience, and management, as well as teachers and students of higher education institutions.
期刊最新文献
USING SUBJECTIVE REPORT RATING SCALES TO REVEAL BASIC PROCESSES UNDERLYING INSIGHT SOLUTIONS IN ANAGRAM TASKS WHAT IS A PROBLEM IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THINKING AND WHY IS IT NEEDED A STUDY OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN NEWBORN CHILDREN OUTCOMES AND EMOTIONAL STATES AND ATTACHMENT TO A FETUS IN WOMEN PREGNANT USING IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION От чего зависят профессиональные планы старших школьников? EMBODIED PROBLEM SOLVING: A REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL PARADIGMS
×
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