自我卷入对社会比较情境下情绪预测偏差的影响
The Impact of Self-Involvement on Emotional Prediction Bias in Social Comparison Contexts
DOI: 10.12677/ass.2024.137567, PDF,   
作者: 王珍灵:福建师范大学心理学院,福建 福州
关键词: 自我卷入情绪预测偏差社会比较Self-Involvement Emotional Prediction Bias Social Comparison
摘要: 人们在对事情进行决策时,常常会不自觉地根据情绪预测结果。然而,对未来情绪事件的情绪预测与即时的情绪体验总是存在偏差,人们常常过高或过低地估计自己情绪反应的时间和强度,即影响偏差。本研究采用2 × 2混合实验设计,创设实验情景,诱发被试积极或消极的情绪体验,旨在考察大学生情绪预测偏差现象及探讨自我卷入度对中国大学生情绪预测偏差的影响,得到结果如下:(1) 情绪预测偏差现象普遍存在于大学生群体当中。在消极反馈条件下,负性情绪预测存在显著的预测偏差。(2) 高自我卷入度条件下的情绪预测显著低于低自我卷入度下的情绪预测,且高自我卷入度下的情绪预测偏差显著小于低自我卷入度下的情绪预测偏差。
Abstract: When people make decisions about things, they often unconsciously predict the results based on emotions. However, there is always a bias between predicting future emotional events and experiencing immediate emotions, and people often overestimate the time and intensity of their emotional reactions, which is known as influence bias. In this study, a 2 × 2 mixed experimental design was used to create an experimental scenario that induced positive or negative emotional experiences in the subjects. The aim was to investigate the phenomenon of emotional prediction bias and explore the impact of self-involvement on emotional prediction bias among Chinese college students. The results were as follows: (1) The phenomenon of emotional prediction bias is widely present among college students. Under negative feedback conditions, there is a significant prediction bias in predicting negative emotions. (2) The emotional prediction under high self-involvement is significantly lower than that under low self-involvement, and the emotional prediction bias under high self-involvement is significantly smaller than that under low self-involvement.
文章引用:王珍灵. 自我卷入对社会比较情境下情绪预测偏差的影响[J]. 社会科学前沿, 2024, 13(7): 80-91. https://doi.org/10.12677/ass.2024.137567

参考文献

[1] Wilson, T.D. and Gilbert, D.T. (2005) Affective Forecasting: Knowing What to Want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131-134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Wilson, T.D. and Gilbert, D.T. (2003) Affective Forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345-411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] 陈彦君, 石伟, 应虎. 能力的自我评价偏差: 邓宁-克鲁格效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(12): 2204-2213.
[4] 陈宁. 教师的情绪预测准确性及其影响因素[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 上海: 上海师范大学, 2013.
[5] 孙琳, 段涛, 陈宁. 情绪预测偏差的成因及干预[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(12): 2018-2026.
[6] Robinson, M.D. and Clore, G.L. (2001) Simulation, Scenarios, and Emotional Appraisal: Testing the Convergence of Real and Imagined Reactions to Emotional Stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520-1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Van Boven, L. and Loewenstein, G. (2005) Empathy Gaps in Emotional Perspective Taking. In: Malle, B.F. and Hodges, S.D., Eds., Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide between Self and Others, The Guilford Press, New York, 284-297.
[8] 耿晓伟, 刘丹, 牛燕华. 分析思维降低情感预测影响偏差[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(10): 1168-1177.
[9] 耿晓伟, 姜宏艺. 调节定向和调节匹配对情感预测中影响偏差的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1537-1547.
[10] Festinger, L. (1954) A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[11] Wood, J.V. (1989) Theory and Research Concerning Social Comparisons of Personal Attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] 邢淑芬, 俞国良. 社会比较研究的现状与发展趋势[J]. 心理科学进展, 2005, 13(1): 78-84.
[13] 周爱保, 赵鑫. 社会比较中的认知偏差探析: “优于常人”效应和“差于常人”效应[J]. 心理科学探新. 2008, 28(1), 72-76.
[14] Dunn, E.W., Brackett, M.A., Ashton-James, C., Schneiderman, E. and Salovey, P. (2007) On Emotionally Intelligent Time Travel: Individual Differences in Affective Forecasting Ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 85-93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] 胡磊. 浅析卷入概念的发展历程及其应用[J]. 江苏商论, 2013(2): 35-39.
[16] 高慕烨. 表达方式、卷入度对态度测量影响的实验研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 苏州: 苏州大学, 2018.
[17] 董妍, 俞国良. 自我提升的研究现状与展望[J]. 心理科学进展, 2005(2): 178-185.
[18] 邱林, 郑雪, 王雁飞. 积极情感消极情感量表(PANAS)的修订[J]. 应用心理学, 2008, 14(3): 249-254.
[19] Pauketat, J.V.T., Moons, W.G., Chen, J.M., Mackie, D.M. and Sherman, D.K. (2016) Self-Affirmation and Affective Forecasting: Affirmation Reduces the Anticipated Impact of Negative Events. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 750-759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef