Biomedical subjects

Paul J Silvia

Publications and source records attributed to Paul J Silvia.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Must interesting things be pleasant? A test of competing appraisal structures.

What makes something interesting? Appraisal research has proposed two appraisal structures for the emotion of interest. One model (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) contends that appraised pleasantness is central to interest, whereas an alternative model (Silvia, 2005b) contends that pleasantness is unnecessary for interest. An experiment tested these competing predictions. Participants viewed calming and disturbing paintings, rated each picture for appraisals, and reported their experienced interest and pleasantness/ enjoyment. Within-person analyses found that (a) interest and pleasantness were essentially unrelated; (b) appraised novelty- complexity positively predicted interest, but negatively predicted pleasantness; and (c) disturbing pictures were highly interesting but unpleasant, whereas calming pictures were highly pleasant but uninteresting. The results thus strongly suggest that interesting things needn't be pleasant. Implications for in vivo (versus retrospective) tests of competing appraisal predictions are considered.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Responding to deviance: target exclusion and differential devaluation.

Two studies explored responses to ingroup deviance. Group-defining opinions of prowar Republicans (Study 1) and prolife Christians (Study 2) were challenged by either an ingroup or outgroup deviate. Participants evaluated the deviate and structured the boundaries of their ingroup in counterbalanced order. Of importance, boundary structuring allowed participants to exclude deviates from the ingroup. Consistent with previous research, ingroup deviates were devalued relative to out-group deviates, but only when target evaluation was participants' first response option. Participants excluded deviates from the boundaries of their ingroup irrespective of measure order, and doing so eliminated differential devaluation when exclusion was participants' first response option. Exclusion decreased liking for outgroup deviates in Study 1 and increased liking for ingroup deviates in Study 2. The findings suggest that devaluation is an attempt to exclude deviates from the ingroup and that doing so reduces the threat otherwise experienced.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2006

The latent structure of trait curiosity: evidence for interest and deprivation curiosity dimensions.

To evaluate Litman and Jimerson's (2004) Interest/Deprivation (I/D) model of curiosity, 355 students (269 women, 86 men) responded to 6 trait curiosity measures including the Curiosity/Interest in the World scale (C/IW; Peterson & Seligman, 2004), the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004), the Perceptual Curiosity scale (PC; Collins, Litman, & Spielberger, 2004), the Epistemic Curiosity scale (EC; Litman & Spielberger, 2003), and the Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation scales (CFD; Litman & Jimerson, 2004). Consistent with expectations, the results of confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that the C/IW, CEI, PC, EC scales defined an Interest (I) curiosity factor, whereas the CFD scales formed a Deprivation (D) curiosity factor. However, as compared to the other interest-based curiosity measures, one of the EC subscales was found to be less differentiated from the CFD scales, presumably because these instruments assess overlapping aspects of Berlyne's (1954) concept of epistemic curiosity. The results of this study indicated that I and D curiosity are related but differentiated curiosity dimensions, providing evidence for the validity of the I/D model.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest.

Relative to other emotions, interest is poorly understood. On the basis of theories of appraisal process and structure, it was predicted that interest consists of appraisals of novelty (factors related to unfamiliarity and complexity) and appraisals of coping potential (the ability to understand the new, complex thing). Four experiments, using in vivo rather than retrospective methods, supported this appraisal structure. The findings were general across measured and manipulated appraisals, interesting stimuli (random polygons, visual art, poetry), and measures of interest (self-reports, forced-choice, behavioral measures). Furthermore, the appraisal structure was specific to interest (it did not predict enjoyment, a related positive emotion), and appraisals predicted interest beyond relevant traits (curiosity, openness). The appraisal perspective offers a powerful way of construing the causes of interest.

Adaptation, Psychological↗

PubMed2005

Self-awareness and the emotional consequences of self-discrepancies.

Several self theories explore the effects of discrepant self-beliefs on motivation and emotion. This research intersected two self theories: self-discrepancy theory and objective self-awareness theory. Self-discrepancy theory predicts that ideal and ought discrepancies cause different negative emotions; objective self-awareness theory predicts that high self-awareness will strengthen the relationship between self-discrepancies and emotions. People (N =112) completed measures of self-discrepancies and emotions (dejection, agitation, positive affect, and negative affect). Self-focused attention was manipulated with a large mirror. When self-awareness was low, self-discrepancies had weak, nonsignificant relations to emotion. When self-awareness was high, however, self-discrepancies strongly predicted emotional experience. These effects were general-ideal and ought discrepancies affected emotions because of their substantial shared variance, not their unique variance. Implications for theories of self-discrepancies and emotions are considered.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Self-awareness, self-evaluation, and creativity.

The present research examined when self-evaluation influences creativity. Based on objective self-awareness theory, the authors predicted that feeling able to improve would buffer against the detrimental effects of self-evaluation on creativity. Two experiments manipulated self-evaluation (varying self-awareness, Study 1; providing objective performance standards, Study 2) and perceived ability to improve potential failure on the creativity task. Self-evaluation reduced creativity (generating remote associates, finding unusual uses for a knife) in both experiments, but only when people did not expect to improve. When people felt able to improve, self-evaluation did not affect creativity. Connections between self-motives, creativity, and defensiveness are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

A self-novelty manipulation of self-focused attention for internet and laboratory experiments.

Conventional manipulations of self-focused attention are poorly suited for Internet experiments and for group-based administration. The authors present a self-novelty manipulation that effectively induces self-awareness for such contexts. In the high self-focus condition, people write about how they differ from their family and friends and from people in general. In the control conditions, people write about neutral topics or do no writing. Three experiments using different measures of self-focus (the situational self-awareness scale, a pronoun selection task, and the private self-consciousness scale) showed that the self-novelty manipulation significantly increased self-focused attention. This effect appeared in Internet-based experiments (Experiment 1) and in laboratory experiments with groups (Experiments 2 and 3). The self-novelty manipulation appears promising for self-awareness research conducted outside of conventional laboratory contexts.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Self-awareness, probability of improvement, and the self-serving bias.

Evidence for the self-serving bias (attributing success internally and failure externally) is inconsistent. Although internal success attributions are consistently found, researchers find both internal and external attributions for failure. The authors explain these disparate effects by considering the intersection of 2 systems, a system comparing self against standards and a causal attribution system. It was predicted that success and failure attributions are moderated by self-awareness and by the ability to improve. When self-focus is high (a) success is attributed internally. (b) failure is attributed internally when people can improve, (c) failure is attributed externally when people cannot improve, and (d) these attributions affect state self-esteem. Implications for the self-serving bias are discussed.

Adult↗