Temporal dynamics of real-world emotion are more strongly linked to prediction error than outcome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primarily based on laboratory studies, theories of affect propose that emotions are driven by the valence of outcomes as well as the difference between the outcome itself and the expected outcome (i.e., the prediction error [PE]). Yet no work has assessed the drivers of emotion using real-world, personally meaningful events on timescales over which human emotion unfolds. We developed an event-triggered, ecological momentary assessment procedure measuring positive and negative affect (PA and NA, respectively) in university students as they received exam grades for which they had made predictions. We split data into exploratory and confirmatory samples, and built computational models predicting the time course of PA and NA and demonstrate that a model incorporating both exam grade and grade PE accounted for the time course of PA and NA better than a model solely using exam grades. Further, grade PEs were stronger predictors of the time course of PA and NA than the grades themselves. Similarly, the effects of PEs also persisted longer for NA than PA. These data indicate that deviations from expectations are critical determinants of the temporal dynamics of real-world emotion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".