A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions.

We present a three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions that considers valence, arousal, and object focus as core features of these emotions. By distinguishing between positive and negative emotions (valence), activating and deactivating emotions (arousal), and activity emotions, prospective outcome emotions, and retrospective outcome emotions (object focus), the taxonomy has a 2 × 2 × 3 structure representing 12 groups of achievement emotions. In four studies across different countries (N = 330, 235, 323, and 269 participants in Canada, the United States, Germany, and the U.K., respectively), we investigated the empirical robustness of the taxonomy in educational (Studies 1-3) and work settings (Study 4). An expanded version of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire was used to assess 12 key emotions representing the taxonomy. Consistently across the four studies, findings from multilevel facet analysis and structural equation modeling documented the importance of the three dimensions for explaining achievement emotions. In addition, based on hypotheses about relations with external variables, the findings show clear links of the emotions with important antecedents and outcomes. The Big Five personality traits, appraisals of control and value, and context perceptions were predictors of the emotions. The 12 emotions, in turn, were related to participants' use of strategies, cognitive performance, and self-reported health problems. Taken together, the findings provide robust evidence for the unique positions of different achievement emotions in the proposed taxonomy, as well as unique patterns of relations with external variables. Directions for future research and implications for policy and practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Are concepts of achievement-related emotions universal across cultures? A semantic profiling approach.

Verifying that conceptualisations of emotions are consistent across languages and cultures is a critical precondition for meaningful cross-cultural research on emotional experience. For achievement-related emotions tied to successes or failures, such evidence is virtually non-existent. To address this gap, we compared Canadian, German, Colombian, and Chinese university students' (NTotal = 126) perceptions of affective, cognitive, motivational, physiological, and expressive characteristics of 16 achievement-related emotions using a psycholinguistic tool for profiling emotion concepts (Achievement Emotions CoreGRID). Cross-cultural similarity of emotion concepts quantified through double-entry intraclass correlations was generally high, and highest for their affective, cognitive, and motivational components. However, results also point to cultural variation, particularly for physiological and expressive components. Variation in perceived physiological characteristics was most pronounced for boredom, and for comparisons of Canada, Germany, and Colombia with China. Implications for theoretical propositions of universality of emotion concepts and future research on achievement-related emotions are discussed.

Surprised-curious-confused: Epistemic emotions and knowledge exploration.

Some epistemic emotions, such as surprise and curiosity, have attracted increasing scientific attention, whereas others, such as confusion, have yet to receive the attention they deserve. In addition, little is known about the relations between these emotions, their joint antecedents and outcomes, and how they differ from other emotions prompted during learning and knowledge generation (e.g., achievement emotions). In 3 studies (Ns = 102, 373, 125) using a trivia task with immediate feedback, we examined within-person interrelations, antecedents, and effects of 3 epistemic emotions (surprise, curiosity, and confusion). Studies 2 and 3 additionally included 2 achievement emotions (pride and shame). Using multilevel modeling to disentangle within- and between-person variance, we found that achievement emotions were associated with accuracy (i.e., correctness of the answer), whereas epistemic emotions were related to high-confidence errors (i.e., incorrect answers a person was confident in) generating cognitive incongruity. Furthermore, as compared with achievement emotions, epistemic emotions were more strongly and positively related to subsequent knowledge exploration. Specifically, surprise and curiosity were positive predictors of exploration. Confusion had positive predictive effects on exploration which were significant in Studies 1 and 3 but not in Study 2, suggesting that the effects of confusion are less stable and need to be investigated further. Apart from the findings for confusion, the results were fully robust across all 3 studies. They shed light on the distinct origins and outcomes of epistemic emotions. Directions for future research and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Surprise, Curiosity, and Confusion Promote Knowledge Exploration: Evidence for Robust Effects of Epistemic Emotions.

Research has started to acknowledge the importance of emotions for complex learning and cognitive performance. However, research on epistemic emotions has only recently become more prominent. Research in educational psychology in particular has mostly focused on examining achievement emotions instead of epistemic emotions. Furthermore, only few studies have addressed functional mechanisms underlying multiple different epistemic emotions simultaneously, and only one study has systematically compared the origins and effects of epistemic emotions with other emotions relevant to knowledge generation (i.e., achievement emotions; Vogl et al., 2019). The present article aimed to replicate the findings from Vogl et al. (2019) exploring within-person interrelations, origins, and outcomes of the epistemic emotions surprise, curiosity, and confusion, and the achievement emotions pride and shame, as well as to analyze their robustness and generalizability across two different study settings (online; Study 1, n = 169 vs. lab; Study 2, n = 79). In addition, the previous findings by Vogl et al. (2019, Study 3) and the present two new studies were meta-analytically integrated to consolidate evidence on origins and outcomes of epistemic emotions. The results of the two new studies largely replicated the findings by Vogl et al. (2019). Combined with the meta-analytic results, the findings confirm distinct patterns of antecedents for epistemic vs. achievement emotions: Pride and shame were more strongly associated with the correctness of a person's answer (i.e., accuracy), whereas surprise, curiosity, and confusion were more strongly related to incorrect responses a person was confident in (i.e., high-confidence errors) producing cognitive incongruity. Furthermore, in contrast to achievement emotions, epistemic emotions had positive effects on the exploration of knowledge. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Measuring emotions during epistemic activities: the Epistemically-Related Emotion Scales.

Measurement instruments assessing multiple emotions during epistemic activities are largely lacking. We describe the construction and validation of the Epistemically-Related Emotion Scales, which measure surprise, curiosity, enjoyment, confusion, anxiety, frustration, and boredom occurring during epistemic cognitive activities. The instrument was tested in a multinational study of emotions during learning from conflicting texts (N = 438 university students from the United States, Canada, and Germany). The findings document the reliability, internal validity, and external validity of the instrument. A seven-factor model best fit the data, suggesting that epistemically-related emotions should be conceptualised in terms of discrete emotion categories, and the scales showed metric invariance across the North American and German samples. Furthermore, emotion scores changed over time as a function of conflicting task information and related significantly to perceived task value and use of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies.