Patel Prsni, Urry Heather L
Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA, United States.
Front Psychol. 2024 Jul 23;15:1412398. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1412398. eCollection 2024.
Evidence for affective forecasting errors is mixed. We review recent studies to determine whether taking a discrete versus dimensional approach to measuring affective forecasting could partly explain this inconsistency. We observed variation in measurement approaches to measuring and analyzing affective forecasting; those that adopted a discrete approach often examined high arousal positive (e.g., excitement) and negative (e.g., anger) emotions. We recommend conducting empirical studies and meta-analyses to examine whether affective forecasting errors differ systematically depending on measurement approach. Furthermore, we recommend expanding the scope of affective forecasting investigations to examine more granular dimensional affective states and low-arousal discrete emotions. The ideas and future directions presented enhance our understanding of affective forecasting errors and how we study them.
关于情感预测错误的证据并不一致。我们回顾了近期的研究,以确定采用离散式与维度式方法来测量情感预测是否能部分解释这种不一致性。我们观察到在测量和分析情感预测的方法上存在差异;那些采用离散式方法的研究通常考察高唤醒的积极情绪(如兴奋)和消极情绪(如愤怒)。我们建议开展实证研究和元分析,以检验情感预测错误是否会因测量方法的不同而系统地有所差异。此外,我们建议扩大情感预测研究的范围,以考察更细化的维度情感状态和低唤醒的离散情绪。所提出的观点和未来方向增进了我们对情感预测错误以及我们如何研究它们的理解。