分解情绪估值中与情绪相关的三个维度:好的、令人愉快的和令人向往的。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Emotion Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1037/emo0001401
Suhjin Lee, Kieran McVeigh, Maxine Garcia, Vivian Carrillo, Jeanie Kim, Ajay B Satpute
{"title":"分解情绪估值中与情绪相关的三个维度:好的、令人愉快的和令人向往的。","authors":"Suhjin Lee, Kieran McVeigh, Maxine Garcia, Vivian Carrillo, Jeanie Kim, Ajay B Satpute","doi":"10.1037/emo0001401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People place value on emotion categories that inform which emotions to cultivate and which to regulate in life. Here, we examined how people's beliefs about emotion categories varied along three valence-related dimensions: evaluation (good, bad), hedonic feeling (pleasure, displeasure), and desirability (want to feel, do not want to feel). In Studies 1A and 1B, we found that evaluative (good/bad) and hedonic (pleasant/unpleasant) ratings were distinct for certain emotions including lust, anger, shame, fear, and guilt. In Study 2, we found that emotion valuation depended on cultural background in a sample of Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans. Overall, Asian American participants evaluated certain emotions (including, but not limited to, anger, sadness, guilt, and shame) more positively than Caucasian American participants, and this difference was more pronounced on the evaluative rating dimension. Finally, in Study 3, we examined how evaluative and hedonic dimensions further relate with the desire to experience certain emotions and the emotions that people believe they feel in everyday life. Our findings support a model in which evaluative and hedonic dimensions of emotion valuation predict desired emotional states, which in turn predicts beliefs about the reported frequency of emotions experienced in everyday life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disentangling three valence-related dimensions of emotion valuation: The good, the pleasant, and the desirable.\",\"authors\":\"Suhjin Lee, Kieran McVeigh, Maxine Garcia, Vivian Carrillo, Jeanie Kim, Ajay B Satpute\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/emo0001401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>People place value on emotion categories that inform which emotions to cultivate and which to regulate in life. Here, we examined how people's beliefs about emotion categories varied along three valence-related dimensions: evaluation (good, bad), hedonic feeling (pleasure, displeasure), and desirability (want to feel, do not want to feel). In Studies 1A and 1B, we found that evaluative (good/bad) and hedonic (pleasant/unpleasant) ratings were distinct for certain emotions including lust, anger, shame, fear, and guilt. In Study 2, we found that emotion valuation depended on cultural background in a sample of Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans. Overall, Asian American participants evaluated certain emotions (including, but not limited to, anger, sadness, guilt, and shame) more positively than Caucasian American participants, and this difference was more pronounced on the evaluative rating dimension. Finally, in Study 3, we examined how evaluative and hedonic dimensions further relate with the desire to experience certain emotions and the emotions that people believe they feel in everyday life. Our findings support a model in which evaluative and hedonic dimensions of emotion valuation predict desired emotional states, which in turn predicts beliefs about the reported frequency of emotions experienced in everyday life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emotion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001401\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001401","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们对情绪类别的价值取向决定了在生活中应该培养哪些情绪,调节哪些情绪。在这里,我们研究了人们对情绪类别的信念如何在三个与情绪相关的维度上发生变化:评价(好、坏)、享乐感觉(愉快、不愉快)和可取性(想感觉、不想感觉)。在研究 1A 和 1B 中,我们发现对于某些情绪,包括欲望、愤怒、羞耻、恐惧和内疚,评价性(好/坏)和享乐性(愉快/不愉快)评价是截然不同的。在研究 2 中,我们发现在亚裔美国人和白种美国人样本中,情绪评价取决于文化背景。总体而言,亚裔美国人比白种美国人对某些情绪(包括但不限于愤怒、悲伤、内疚和羞愧)的评价更积极,这种差异在评价等级维度上更为明显。最后,在研究 3 中,我们考察了评价性维度和享乐性维度如何进一步与体验某些情绪的愿望以及人们认为自己在日常生活中感受到的情绪相关联。我们的研究结果支持这样一个模型,即情绪评价的评价性和享乐性维度可以预测期望的情绪状态,而期望的情绪状态反过来又可以预测人们对日常生活中报告的情绪体验频率的信念。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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。
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
Disentangling three valence-related dimensions of emotion valuation: The good, the pleasant, and the desirable.

People place value on emotion categories that inform which emotions to cultivate and which to regulate in life. Here, we examined how people's beliefs about emotion categories varied along three valence-related dimensions: evaluation (good, bad), hedonic feeling (pleasure, displeasure), and desirability (want to feel, do not want to feel). In Studies 1A and 1B, we found that evaluative (good/bad) and hedonic (pleasant/unpleasant) ratings were distinct for certain emotions including lust, anger, shame, fear, and guilt. In Study 2, we found that emotion valuation depended on cultural background in a sample of Asian Americans and Caucasian Americans. Overall, Asian American participants evaluated certain emotions (including, but not limited to, anger, sadness, guilt, and shame) more positively than Caucasian American participants, and this difference was more pronounced on the evaluative rating dimension. Finally, in Study 3, we examined how evaluative and hedonic dimensions further relate with the desire to experience certain emotions and the emotions that people believe they feel in everyday life. Our findings support a model in which evaluative and hedonic dimensions of emotion valuation predict desired emotional states, which in turn predicts beliefs about the reported frequency of emotions experienced in everyday life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
期刊最新文献
Mindfulness training fosters a positive outlook during acute stress: A randomized controlled trial. The many faces of mimicry depend on the social context. Loneliness and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic review. Regulating and emerging: Extrinsic affect improvement and the emergence of leadership. Learning to suppress what I fear.
×
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