4.7 Review

Eliciting mixed emotions: a meta-analysis comparing models, types, and measures

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00428

关键词

mixed emotions; mixed feelings; emotional complexity; affect model; meta-analysis

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) UK [RES-060-25-0044]
  2. ESRC [ES/F037449/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/F037449/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The idea that people can experience two oppositely valenced emotions has been controversial ever since early attempts to investigate the construct of mixed emotions. This meta-analysis examined the robustness with which mixed emotions have been elicited experimentally. A systematic literature search identified 63 experimental studies that instigated the experience of mixed emotions. Studies were distinguished according to the structure of the underlying affect model dimensional or discrete as well as according to the type of mixed emotions studied (e.g., happy-sad, fearful-happy, positive-negative). The meta-analysis using a random-effects model revealed a moderate to high effect size for the elicitation of mixed emotions (d(IG+) = 0.77), which remained consistent regardless of the structure of the affect model, and across different types of mixed emotions. Several methodological and design moderators were tested. Studies using the minimum index (i.e., the minimum value between a pair of opposite valenced affects) resulted in smaller effect sizes, whereas subjective measures of mixed emotions increased the effect sizes. The presence of more women in the samples was also associated with larger effect sizes. The current study indicates that mixed emotions are a robust, measurable and non-artifactual experience. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for an affect system that has greater versatility and flexibility than previously thought.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据