» Articles » PMID: 35846603

Surprisingness and Occupational Engagement Influence Affective Forecasting in Career-Relevant Contexts

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2022 Jul 18
PMID 35846603
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

People tend to misestimate their future emotions. This phenomenon is thought to be associated with information accessibility. However, few studies have demonstrated the impact of context-specific information accessibility on affective forecasting. This research investigated the effects of information accessibility on affective forecasting in career context (i.e., occupational engagement was seen as information accessibility), during which surprise or not surprise context was played simultaneously. We found that affective forecasting appeared stably across emotional response types. Specifically, there was an underestimation in interest appraisals and an overestimation in satisfaction. These biases were influenced by occupational engagement, which only worked in career interest appraisals. High occupational engagement made people estimate their future emotions more accurately and overcome their forecasting bias. Surprisingness was then manipulated further to explain whether it could impact the effect of occupational engagement on affective forecasting. The emotional responses in both prediction and experience were affected by surprisingness, thus causing no affective forecasting biases. These results suggest the role of occupational engagement in affective forecasting and provide evidence supporting the information accessibility model about the mechanism in affective forecasting.

Citing Articles

Discrete and dimensional approaches to affective forecasting errors.

Patel P, Urry H Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1412398.

PMID: 39118844 PMC: 11308209. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1412398.

References
1.
Villinger K, Wahl D, Konig L, Ziesemer K, Butscher S, Muller J . Do We Know What We Enjoy? Accuracy of Forecasted Eating Happiness. Front Psychol. 2020; 11:1187. PMC: 7311650. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01187. View

2.
Robinson M, Clore G . Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol Bull. 2002; 128(6):934-60. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.934. View

3.
Levine L, Lench H, Kaplan R, Safer M . Accuracy and artifact: reexamining the intensity bias in affective forecasting. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012; 103(4):584-605. DOI: 10.1037/a0029544. View

4.
Dore B, Meksin R, Mather M, Hirst W, Ochsner K . Highly accurate prediction of emotions surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001 over 1-, 2-, and 7-year prediction intervals. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2016; 145(6):788-95. PMC: 4873355. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000168. View

5.
Frank C, Iordan A, Ballouz T, Mikels J, Reuter-Lorenz P . Affective forecasting: A selective relationship with working memory for emotion. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020; 150(1):67-82. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000780. View