Surprise is predicted by event probability, outcome valence, outcome meaningfulness, and gender

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：James Juergensen (1)
  Joseph S. Weaver (1)
  Kevin J. Burns (2)
  Peter E. Knutson (1)
  Jennifer L. Butler (1)
  Heath A. Demaree (1)
  
• 关键词：Surprise ; Emotion ; Probability ; Expectation ; Gender ; Risk ; taking
• 刊名：Motivation and Emotion
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：April 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：38
• 期：2
• 页码：297-304
• 全文大小：245 KB
• 参考文献：1. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. / Memory and Language, / 59, 390-12. CrossRef
  2. Baldi, P., & Itti, L. (2010). Of bits and wows: A Bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention. / Neural Networks, / 23(5), 649-66. CrossRef
  3. Bar-Hillel, M., & Budescu, D. (1995). The elusive wishful thinking effect. / Thinking & Reasoning, / 1, 71-03. CrossRef
  4. Bates, D. E., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). / lme4: Linear mixed- / effects models using S4 classes. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
  5. Bilgin, B. (2012). Losses loom more likely than gains: Propensity to imagine losses increases their subjective probability. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, / 118, 203-15. CrossRef
  6. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II: Sex differences in picture processing. / Emotion, / 1(3), 300-19. CrossRef
  7. Brandst?tter, E., Kühberger, A., & Schneider, F. (2002). A cognitive-emotional account of the shape of the probability weighting function. / Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, / 15, 79-00. CrossRef
  8. Brody, L. R. (1996). Gender, emotional expression, and parent-child boundaries. In R. D. Kavanaugh, B. Zimmerberg, & S. Fein (Eds.), / Emotion: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 139-70). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  9. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. / Psychological Bulletin, / 125(3), 367-83. CrossRef
  10. Darwin, C. (1872/1965). / The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Demaree, H. A., Burns, K. J., DeDonno, M. A., Agarwala, E. K., & Everhart, D. E. (2012). Risk dishabituation: In repeated gambling, risk is reduced following low probability, “surprising,-events (wins or losses). / Emotion, / 12(3), 495-02. CrossRef
  12. Demaree, H. A., DeDonno, M. A., Burns, K. J., & Everhart, D. E. (2008). You bet: How personality differences affect risk-taking preferences. / Personality and Individual Differences, / 44, 1484-494. CrossRef
  13. Demaree, H. A., DeDonno, M. A., Burns, K. J., Feldman, P., & Everhart, D. E. (2009). Trait dominance predicts risk-taking. / Personality and Individual Differences, / 47(5), 419-22. CrossRef
  14. Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. / Cognition and Emotion, / 6, 169-00. CrossRef
  15. Falk, R. (1989). The judgment of coincidences: Mine versus yours. / American Journal of Psychology, / 102, 477-93. CrossRef
  16. Gendolla, G. H. E. (1997). Surprise in the context of achievement: The role of outcome valence and importance. / Motivation and Emotion, / 21(2), 165-93. CrossRef
  17. Gendolla, G. H. E., & Koller, M. (2001). Surprise and motivation of causal search: How are they affected by outcome valence and importance? / Motivation and Emotion, / 25(4), 327-49. CrossRef
  18. Gupta, R., Derevensky, J. L., & Ellenbogen, S. (2006). Personality characteristics and risk-taking tendencies among adolescent gamblers. / Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, / 38(3), 201-13. CrossRef
  19. Hraba, J., & Lee, G. (1996). Gender, gambling, and problem gambling. / Journal of Gambling Studies, / 12(1), 83-01. CrossRef
  20. Itti, L., & Baldi, P. (2009). Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. / Vision Research, / 49, 1295-306. CrossRef
  21. Izard, C. E. (1977). / Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press. CrossRef
  22. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. / Econometrica, / 47(2), 263-91. CrossRef
  23. Kermer, D. A., Driver-Linn, E., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2006). Loss aversion is an affective forecasting error. / Psychological Science, / 17(8), 649-53. CrossRef
  24. Knutson, B., & Bossaerts, P. (2007). Neural antecedents of risk. / The Journal of Neuroscience, / 27(31), 8174-177. CrossRef
  25. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. / Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, / 74, 686-03. CrossRef
  26. Kuhnen, C. M., & Knutson, B. (2005). The neural basis of financial risk-taking. / Neuron, / 47, 763-70. CrossRef
  27. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2001). / International affective picture system (IAPS): Instruction manual and affective ratings. Gainesville, Florida: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
  28. Langewisch, M. W. J., & Frisch, G. R. (1998). Gambling behavior and pathology in relation to impulsivity, sensation seeking, and risky behavior in male college students. / Journal of Gambling Studies, / 14(3), 245-62. CrossRef
  29. Mandel, D. R. (2008). Violations of coherence in subjective probability: A representational and assessment processes account. / Cognition, / 106(1), 130-56. CrossRef
  30. Meyer, W.-U., Niepel, M., Rudolph, U., & Schützwohl, A. (1991). An experimental analysis of surprise. / Cognition and Emotion, / 5(4), 295-11. CrossRef
  31. Meyer, W.-U., Reisenzein, R., & Schützwohl, A. (1997). Towards a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. / Motivation and Emotion, / 21, 251-74. CrossRef
  32. Niepel, M., Rudolph, U., Schützwohl, A., & Meyer, W.-U. (1994). Temporal characteristics of the surprise reaction induced by schema-discrepant visual and auditory events. / Cognition and Emotion, / 8(5), 433-52. CrossRef
  33. Plutchik, R. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), / Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (Vol. 1. Theories of emotion, pp. 3-3). New York: Academic Press.
  34. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. / Journal of Economic Psychology, / 18, 605-28. CrossRef
  35. R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In / R / Foundaion for Statistical Computing (Ed.). Vienna, Austria.
  36. Reisenzein, R. (2000). Exploring the strength of association between the components of emotion syndromes: The case of surprise. / Cognition and Emotion, / 14(1), 1-8. CrossRef
  37. Scherer, K. R., Zentner, M. R., & Stern, D. (2004). Beyond surprise: The puzzle of infants-expressive reactions to expectancy violation. / Emotion, / 4(4), 389-02. CrossRef
  38. Teigen, K. H., & Keren, G. (2002). When successes are more surprising than failures. / Cognition and Emotion, / 16, 245-68. CrossRef
  39. Teigen, K. H., & Keren, G. (2003). Surprises: Low probabilities or high contrasts? / Cognition, / 87, 55-1. CrossRef
  40. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. / Science, / 185(4157), 1124-131. CrossRef
  41. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. / Journal of Abnormal Psychology, / 103, 103-16. CrossRef
  42. Wilson, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M., & Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: Basic anchoring and its antecedents. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, / 125(4), 387-02. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：James Juergensen (1)
  Joseph S. Weaver (1)
  Kevin J. Burns (2)
  Peter E. Knutson (1)
  Jennifer L. Butler (1)
  Heath A. Demaree (1)
  
  1. Department of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Mather Memorial Building, Room 109, 11220 Bellflower Road, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7123, USA
  2. The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA, 01730, USA
  
• ISSN：1573-6644

文摘

The present research was designed to better understand how the magnitude of experienced surprise is affected by both individual difference variables as well as variations in surprise-eliciting stimuli. Eighty-five participants played 5 versions of a slot machine-like game. The five games only differed with respect to the probability of winning each trial-0?% (i.e., wins were highly unusual), 30, 50, 70, and 90?% (i.e., losses were highly unusual). Players were given a fictitious “bankroll-at the beginning of each game and played up to 25 trials of each game. On each trial, players selected their wager amount, “pulled-the handle, learned the outcome (win or loss), and reported their surprise level using a 1 (none) to 9 (extremely) Likert scale. Replicating past research, results revealed that self-reported surprise was inversely related to outcome probability and that wins were rated as more surprising than losses, even when wins and losses occurred at the same level of probability. Novel results include finding that larger wagers predicted greater felt surprise (regardless of outcome), and that women reported greater surprise to both wins and losses than men.