THE APPRAISAL PROFILES OF AMAZEMENT: EXPLORING THE ... · emotions such as amusement, awe,...

THE APPRAISAL PROFILES OF AMAZEMENT:

EXPLORING THE APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF THE

EMOTION OF AMAZEMENT

YUEN YEW LUM ALEXANDER

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

2014/2015

Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT

The Appraisal Profiles of Amazement: Exploring the Appraisal Components of the Emotion of

Amazement

Yuen Yew Lum Alexander

An Academic Exercise

Presented To the Department of Psychology

Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

National University of Singapore

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree of Master of Social Sciences (Psychology)

2014/2015

i

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis is my original work and it has been written by me in its

entirety. I have duly acknowledged all the sources of information which have been used

in the thesis.

This thesis has also not been submitted for any degree in any university previously.

_________________________________________________________

Yuen Yew Lum Alexander

5 July 2015

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr Eddie Tong, for teaching and inspiring me. Thank you for taking on this novel topic.

Dr Stephen Lim, for his friendship and inspiration.

The many audiences I have performed my magic for, you have shown me what amazement is

beyond theory.

God, thank you for everything.

And thank you for reading this.

iii

ABSTRACT

Research on amazement is surprisingly thin. This research proposes amazement to be an

emotional state that is associated with a set of appraisal dimensions distinct from those

of related emotions, in particular, amusement, awe, confusion and surprise. Specifically,

amazement was hypothesized to be positively associated with, unexpectedness,

pleasantness, personal relevance, thought-provokingness, grandness and negatively

associated with understandability. In the first study, participants recalled and described

an individual experience of amazement, amusement, awe, confusion and surprise, and

rated their appraisals based on their experiences. The second study employed an event

sampling methodology in which participants reported their emotions and appraisals on

different occasions in real-time. The predicted appraisals of amazement were largely

supported and were also found to be significantly different from those of amusement,

awe, confusion and surprise. Characteristics and evolutionary functions of amazement

were also discussed.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1

Amazement 3

Appraisal Theories of Emotion 7

Appraisal Structure of Amazement 9

Amazement vs. Related Emotions 11

Overview of Current Research 13

CHAPTER TWO

STUDY 1 14

a. Methods 14

b. Results 17

c. Discussion 20

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY 2 21

v

a. Methods 21

b. Results 24

c. Discussion 28

CHAPTER FOUR

GENERAL DISCUSSION 28

Appraisal Configuration of Amazement 28

Amazement and the Related Emotions 31

Evolutionary Significance of Amazement 34

Limitations and Future Directions 36

REFERENCES 37

vi

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. Differences between amazement, amusement, awe, 47

confusion and surprise on six appraisal dimensions (Study 1)

Table 2. Pearson correlation between emotions (Study 2) 48

Table 3. Pearson correlation between appraisal dimensions 49

(Study 2)

Table 4. Hierarchical linear model analysis examining amazement

and another emotions with appraisals as outcome (Study 2) 50


1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Amazement can be felt in many ways, such as when observing an

athlete break another record or comprehending how an aircraft stays in the air.

As our schema of the world changes, we interpret the world differently and

these things amaze us because they challenge our current understanding and

reorganize our schematic notions of them (Piaget & Cook, 1952). There are

also evidences, from studies on magic tricks, suggesting that amazement may

inspire children in learning (Bowman, 1986), predict higher creativity and

observational skills, promote healthy scepticism (McCormack, 1985), enhance

curiosity (Vidler & Levine, 1981), and boost analytical skills (Siegelman,

1985). Hence, it appears that amazement is a knowledge emotion which can

foster learning and drive exploration. Knowledge emotions are emotions

associated with the motive to explore and learn about the eliciting situation

(Silvia, 2009). Despite its tremendous pedagogical potential, amazement

remains largely ignored by researchers.

This stalemate in research on amazement is all the more surprising

considering that a towering figure, Charles Darwin, had devoted some spaces

of his influential work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,

discussing amazement. Darwin focused on the facial properties of amazement,

arguing that it entails a zooming in of attention through the enlargement of the

eyes to process more information and the dropping of the jaw to take in larger

breaths in anticipation (Darwin, 1872). However, beyond this important book,

research on amazement has not evolved much. To be fair, there have been

some discussions in contemporary psychology, but none have gone far enough


2

to dissert the psychological components of amazement. Plutchik (1982)

conceptualized amazement as an orienting emotion that is simply a more

intense variant of surprise. Others categorized amazement as similar to awe

(Shiota, Keltner & Mossman, 2007; Coghlan, Buckley & Weaver, 2012;

Sherry, 2012; Schneider, 2011). One study operationalized amazement as

visible behavioral expressions related to surprise or praise (Rind, 1992), but

like other treatments on the subject, the study did not elaborate further on its

psychological properties.

A possible reason why the literature on amazement is so thin is that

researchers might have deemed amazement as simply a variant of other related

emotions such as amusement, awe, confusion, and, surprise, implying little

meaningful and consequential differences between them in causes,

concomitants, and consequences. However, I would like to propose that while

these other emotions may overlap with amazement on one or more properties,

they do not overlap with amazement on other properties and therefore fall

short of fully capturing the phonological essence of amazement. Indeed, there

have been great strides in psychological science showing that seemingly

similar emotional states, such as hubristic and authentic pride (Tracy &

Robins, 2007), anger and self-anger (Ellsworth & Tong, 2006), shame and

guilt (Tangney, 1995, Tangney, Stuewig, Mashek & Hastings, 2011), envy and

jealousy (Smith, Kim & Parrott, 1988), can be strongly differentiated in terms

of personality antecedents (e.g., the Big Five traits), psychological

components (e.g., appraisals, action tendencies, and behavioral expressions),

and outcomes (e.g., aggression).


3

The purpose of the current research is to demonstrate amazement as a

distinct emotional state with a unique set of cognitive appraisals. There are

many ways to differentiate emotions, such as through facial expressions,

physiological responses and even touch (Hertenstein, Holmes, McCullough &

Keltner, 2009; Arnold, 1945; Hess & Kleck, 1990; Ekman, 1972; Schachter &

Singer, 1962), but this study focuses on appraisals for a start due to the

important roles they play in the elicitation of emotions and their adaptive

significance. As part of the effort to investigate the appraisal profile of

amazement, amazement is compared to other related emotions, in particular,

amusement, awe, confusion, and surprise. The current investigation does not

imply that amazement is an emotion singularly unique from these other

emotions. On the contrary, it should overlap considerably with these emotions

in appraisals. Despite so, I postulate that strong differences in appraisals can

still be observed. Two studies were conducted. In Study 1, participants

recalled events pertaining to amazement and its related emotions and rated

their experiences on appraisal dimensions. In Study 2, event sampling was

used in which participants rated their daily emotions and appraisals in a

naturalistic context.

Amazement

The literature on amazement is thin. However, it has been repeatedly

mentioned in everyday discourse, religious teachings, and philosophical

discussions. These various sources point to reoccurring themes that suggest

amazement might have the following appraisal components: unexpectedness,

pleasantness, personal relevance, thought-provokingness, grandness and

understandability.


4

Amazement in folk knowledge. The etymology of the word "amaze"

can be traced to the 13th

century where it meant "stupefy" and "make crazy".

In the 1500s, it was associated with a feeling of overwhelming wonder

(Harper, 2014). These early usages suggest that for an event to "amaze"

someone, it has to stump and stupefy the person, resulting in deep

introspection, and making the person to be in a "crazy" and perplexed state.

A quote from Albert Einstein might help to elucidate further what

amazement could mean. Einstein claimed: "The scientist's religious feeling

takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which

reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the

systematic thinking and acting of human beings is utterly insignificant

reflection" (Einstein, 2007, p 28). Einstein was speaking specifically of

scientists who, upon discovering the laws of nature, were amazed by their

coherence and grandness that overwhelmingly supersede what human

intelligence could conceive. Also implicit in his statement was that the

discovery contradicts previous conceptualizations of nature. Further, to

Einstein, amazement was a delightful and enlightening feeling, akin to a

religious experience, that ensued from discovering a greater reality. Consistent

with the etymological origin of "amaze", it was also a feeling that was deep in

cognitive deliberation, in Einstein’s case, over an important piece of scientific

inquiry.

Amazement in religion. In the Bible, the word "amazed" is found in

passages depicting encounters with God's miracles or with religious teachings

that surpassed prevailing doctrines. For instance, in Matthew 7: 28-29 (God's

Word Translation), Jesus was reported to preach with a wisdom and authority


5

that was unexpected by the people: "When Jesus finished this speech, the

crowds were amazed at his teachings. Unlike their experts in Moses’

Teachings, he taught them with authority." The passage suggests a feeling of

disbelief in the crowd upon hearing a set of thought-provoking precepts from

someone as young and unknown as Jesus whom they did not expect to hear

such wisdom from.

Similar themes of unexpectedness and disbelief were found in a

passage in the Quran in which Allah miraculously made it possible for an old

couple to bear a child. Here, the wife of Abraham exclaimed: "Woe to me!

Shall I give birth while I am an old woman and this, my husband, is an old

man? Indeed, this is an amazing thing!" (Surat Hud, 11:72 Sahih

International). It is evident that the protagonists were amazed because the

miracle was perceived as impossible through the works of man. The birth was

attributed to a higher being, and might also have made the protagonists realize

their small place in a grander scheme of things over which they were

powerless. Despite this, the miraculous birth was experienced as pleasant, not

fearful or distressful, possibly because of a long-awaited blessing that was

showered upon Abraham and his wife.

Amazement in philosophy. An early mention of amazement was

found in Aristotle's work. While the term "amazement" was not used explicitly

in Aristotle’s philosophy, his usage of the term "astonishment" comes close.

Here, astonishment was thought to be produced from "aporias", which was a

state of contradiction in which new perceptions oppose existing perceptions

(Llewelyn, 2001). For example, viewers of a puppet show would feel

astonishment because of the aporias they would experience from observing a


6

skilled puppeteer move the puppets as if they were alive. By implication,

amazement was posited, in Aristotle’s terms, to be an outcome of a perceived

contradiction between new and previous perceptions of reality.

Plato also argued that aporias was a prerequisite for astonishment

(Llewelyn, 2001). In addition, he posited that aporias would cease if the

mysterious encounter was investigated and understood, which would in turn

reduce astonishment (Llewelyn, 2001). In the case of the puppet,

understanding how the puppet was manoeuvred by strings would therefore

reduce astonishment. Hence, these philosophical sources imply that while

amazement embodies perceptions of contradictory realities or ideas, it also

invites cognitive scrutiny, and sufficient understanding of the apparent

contradiction would reduce it.

Amazement in psychology. The few available reports related to

amazement suggest that amazement might motivate learning and exploration

(McCormack, 1985; Vidler & Levine, 1981; Bowman, 1986). Also, another

study on learning magic tricks suggests that amazement might be highly

pleasant (Lustig, 1994). While these studies do not examine amazement

directly, there are converging evidences to suggest that amazement spikes

curiosity, elicits deep thinking, and is generally experienced as pleasant.

To my knowledge, only one study has directly examined amazement.

Rind (1992) elicited amazement in shoppers by having them watched a 15

year old confederate solve complex mathematical questions. Amazement was

operationalized as smiles and verbal praises. The study revealed that the

shoppers were amazed because they did not expect the boy to be able to solve


7

complex mathematical questions with ease, again implying unexpectedness as

an appraisal dimension of amazement.

There is another study that did not directly examine amazement, but

much about it can be inferred. In this study, expecting parents were seemingly

amazed at the details of the 3D ultrasound images of their baby, which showed

clearer facial features compared to 2D images (Edwards et al. 2010). The

feeling of amazement was a pleasant experience, as the parents witnessed the

development of their baby and the marvels of 3D ultrasound technology. The

images could also have generated thoughts about the process of foetus

development and inspired the sense that there were more to life than just their

own.

In none of these sources were appraisals specifically discussed. Yet,

notions of appraisals were evident. The literature on appraisals is briefly

reviewed next, before specific predictions concerning the appraisal

components of amazement are presented.

Appraisal Theories of Emotion

According to appraisal theories, events are evaluated along various

cognitive appraisal dimensions such as pleasantness, relevance, agency,

control, and certainty (Arnold, 1960; Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1984; Scherer,

1984; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). More importantly, each emotion is associated

with a specific configuration of appraisals. For instance, anger is associated

with low pleasantness, high personal relevance, and high agency-others,

whereas guilt is associated with low pleasantness, high personal relevance, and

high agency-self. There is strong empirical support for these and numerous

other appraisal-emotion relationships (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure,


8

1989; Kuppens, van Mechelen, Smits, & de Boeck, 2003; Parkinson, Roper, &

Simons, 2009; Roseman, Antoniou, & Jose, 1996; Scherer, 1997; Smith &

Ellsworth, 1985; 1987).

There are three reasons why an investigation into the appraisal

components of amazement is important. First, appraisals are among the

elicitors of emotions and reflect the psychological link between environment

elicitors and the person’s response to them (Frijda et al., 1989; Reisenzein &

Hofmann, 1990; Reisenzein & Spielhofer, 1994; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).

Hence, knowing the appraisal correlates of amazement not only give insights

into how it was elicited, but also how it was sustained or weakened. Second,

appraisals not only elicit specific emotions, but also accompany these

emotions upon their elicitation as cognitive components that reflect the

cognitive state of someone experiencing them, thereby influencing their

subsequent responses (Keltner, Ellsworth, & Edwards, 1993; Lerner &

Keltner, 2001). Hence, insights into the types of appraisals that accompany

amazement give better understanding of how individuals feeling amazement

perceive and engage their environment and, by implication, the evolutionarily

adaptive significance of amazement (Ellsworth & Schere, 2003; Frijda, 1987;

Frijda et al., 1989).

Finally, appraisal theories allow for precision in differentiating

differences between emotions. Appraisals not only have the capacity to

differentiate emotions that are drastically dissimilar (e.g. anger vs joy), but

also the capacity to differentiate those that seem highly similar or are variants

of one another, such as anger vs. self-anger (Ellsworth & Tong, 2006), shame

vs. guilt (Tangney, 1995), and hubristic vs. authentic pride (Tracy & Robins,


9

2007; Tracy, Cheng, Robins & Trzesniewski, 2009). This is critical for the

current research, as a major objective of which is to differentiate amazement

from four selected emotions that bear (apparent) similarity with it, namely,

amusement, awe, confusion, and surprise. I now present predictions

concerning the appraisal components of amazement, followed by predictions

of how amazement should differ from the other four related emotions on the

appraisal components.

Appraisal Structure of Amazement

The prior review on the literature on amazement suggests that

amazement is associated with the following appraisals.

Unexpectedness. Perceived unexpectedness refers to a mismatch

between current and existing schemas. As the above review suggests, events

are experienced as amazing when they are perceived as contradicting to prior

expectations (Rind, 1992; Edwards et al., 2010). Hence, unexpectedness is

predicted to be a key component of amazement.

Pleasantness. While it seems possible that a person could be amazed

by an unexpected, thought-provoking event that is unpleasant, in everyday

discourse, such a situation is unlikely to be described as "amazing". If any, it

is more likely to be described as "worrying" or "upsetting". Consistently, the

various sources reviewed above agree in the notion that amazement primarily

occurs in pleasant situations, such as a scientific discovery, a religious

blessing, a magic performance, or witnessing the growth of one’s child.

Hence, pleasantness is predicted to be a component of amazement.

Personal relevance. While it is conceivable that amazement can occur

in response to trivial incidents, the literature suggests otherwise, amazement


10

seems to be stronger in events that are personally relevant (e.g., an important

scientific discovery for scientists; 3D imaging of an unborn baby for to-be

parents). Hence, it is predicted that personal relevance is a component of

amazement.

Thought-provokingness. As reviewed, amazing events invite

cognitive scrutiny. If amazing events confront existing expectations, they

should also motivate people to think about them; to gather information, deduce

causality, and understand their origins (Heider, 1958). Consistently, schools

that employ magic as teaching tools reported more retention of information,

suggesting deeper processing of academic materials among the students

(Lustig, 1994). Remarkably, Darwin (1872) proposed that amazement was

characterized by an enlargement of the eyes, apparently to facilitate greater

capture of visual information for processing. Hence thought-provokingness is

predicted to be an appraisal component of amazement.

Low understandability. If amazement is positively associated with

unexpectedness and thought-provokingness, it should also be associated with

perceived low understanding of the target event. Indeed, accounts of

amazement seem to suggest that the amazed person does not completely

understand how or why the triggering event happens (e.g. Rind, 1992;

Edwards et al., 2010). Hence understandability is predicted to be an appraisal

component of amazement.

Grandness. The review suggests that events that elicit amazement

seem to inspire a realization that there is a greater force at play. For instance,

in the case of religious events, it could be the realization of a powerful

spiritual reality or entity; in the case of child-birth, it could be the awareness


11

that there are scientific laws that govern life and the natural world

independently of, and with disregard of, human will. This component of

grandness may not seem to apply for events that are deemed mundane such as

watching a mimosa plant close by itself. However, to the extent that mundane

events also trigger thoughts about how little one knows about the world, they

can also inspire a sense of grandness.

Amazement vs. Related Emotions

To demonstrate the distinctiveness of amazement, it is important to

examine how it differs from emotions it shares overlapping qualities with.

Evidences of differentiation between amazement and overlapping emotions

would provide stronger support for the hypothesized appraisal components of

amazement more than evidences of differentiation between amazement and

highly dissimilar emotions (e.g., anger), because the latter are expected to be

highly different in the first place. To this end, four overlapping emotions were

examined – amusement, awe, confusion, and surprise

Amazement vs. amusement. Amusement overlaps with amazement in

the sense that both emotions occur in situations that are unexpected and yet

pleasant. The characteristic of amusement is that it is a result of a benign

violation of a weakly committed norm and that it is pleasant (McGraw &

Warren, 2010; Giuliani, McRae & Gross, 2008). Because of its benign nature,

it does not need to be personally relevant, this in turn, might not encourage

deeper processing beyond the event. Also, since events that elicit amusement

are light-hearted and concern ‘small’ matters, they are unlikely to invoke

thoughts of grander scheme of things. Hence, it was hypothesized that, relative


12

to amusement, amazement should be high on personal relevance, thought-

provokingness and grandness.

Amazement vs. awe. Keltner and Haidt (2003) proposed two central

factors for awe; vastness and accommodation. Vastness refers to the

perception that the triggering event is large in scope, not limited to physical

size but it can also be in terms of complexity and impact. Accommodation

refers to the process of updating schemas to include the phenomena that

inspired awe. Studies by Shiota et al. (2007) support this conceptualization of

awe. Hence, awe and amazement could overlap in terms of grandness and

thought-provokingness. However, unexpectedness may not be a necessary

factor for awe as it can also be elicited when a person expects the event (e.g.

an eager tourist visiting the Grand Canyon). Also, awe can be evoked by

fearsome stimuli (e.g., black holes), whereas as mentioned, amazement is

likely to be elicited by pleasant events. Hence, it was predicted that, compared

to awe, amazement should be higher in unexpectedness and pleasantness.

Amazement vs. confusion. Confusion is considered a knowledge

emotion that signals an incoherence between an event and existing schemas

(Silvia, 2009; Mandler, 1984, 1990). Its appraisals include novelty,

complexity, and low understandability (Silvia, 2010). There is evidence to

suggest that confusion occurs when the discrepancy persists (D'Mello,

Lehman, Pekrun & Gresser, 2014). Unable to understand the event, the

confused person may feel frustrated, dislike the triggering event more, and

withdraw from it (D'Mello et al., 2014; Ludden, Kudrowitz, Schifferstein &

Hekkert, 2012; Silvia, 2010). Confusing events also tend to be highly relevant

and involve higher thought processing . These accounts suggest that


13

amazement overlaps with confusion in terms of unexpectedness, personal

relevance, and thought-provokingness. It was hypothesized that, compared to

confusion, amazement should be higher on pleasantness and understandability.

Amazement vs. surprise. Plutchik (1982) theorized amazement to be

a more intense version of surprise. However, it was unclear which appraisal

dimensions he was referring to. The most obvious characteristic of surprise is

its unexpectedness (Silva, 2009). Like amazement, it is induced through the

disconfirmation of expectations (Stiensmeier-Pelster, Martini & Reisenzein,

1995; Whittlesea & Williams, 2001; Reisenzein, 2000). However, unlike

amazement, surprise can be pleasant or unpleasant (Roseman, Antoniou, &

Jose, 1996). Surprise can be induced by changes in both high and low

relevance events. Low relevance events, such as font change in linguistic

stimuli (Meyer, Reisenzein & Schutzwohl, 1997; Reisenzein, Borgen,

Holtbernd & Matz, 2006; Whittlesea & Williams, 2001), are unlikely to

activate deeper thinking and generate thoughts about the grand schemes of

things. In sum, although amazement and surprise might overlap on

unexpectedness, compared to surprise, amazement should be higher on

pleasantness, personal relevance, thought-provokingness, and grandness.

Overview of Current Research

This research was motivated by two objectives: 1) to delineate the

appraisal profile of amazement on six appraisal dimensions and 2) to

differentiate amazement from four overlapping emotions on the same

appraisal dimensions. These objectives were tested in two studies. In Study 1,

initial evidence for the first objective was collected using autobiographical

recall. Participants were asked to recall an event which they felt amazement,


14

and thereafter rate their experience in terms of unexpectedness, pleasantness,

personal relevance, thought-provokingness, understandability and grandness.

Absolute levels of amazement on the six appraisal dimensions were analyzed.

In Study 2, the ecological validity of the appraisal components of amazement

was enhanced using event sampling in which participants were asked to rate

their daily experiences of amazement and the six appraisal dimensions.

Within-participant correlations between amazement and the six appraisal

dimensions were examined. The second objective was also served by both

studies. In Study 1, participants also recalled experiences of amusement, awe,

confusion, and surprise in a within-participant design, and rated these

experiences on the same appraisal items. Differences between amazement and

the four overlapping emotions on the six appraisal dimensions were examined.

In Study 2, participants also rated their daily experiences of amusement, awe,

confusion, and surprise. The extent to which amazement and the four

overlapping emotions independently predicted the six appraisal dimensions

was tested.

CHAPTER TWO

STUDY 1

Methods

Participants

60 undergraduates (24 males, 36 females; mean age = 20.73, SD =

1.54) from the National University of Singapore (NUS) participated for course

credits.

Procedure


15

The experiment was conducted with no more than 11 participants at

once and each session took about 55 minutes. Upon arrival, the participants

were randomly assigned to a personal computer. After giving their written

consent, they proceeded to the recall task. The recall procedure was adapted

from Smith and Ellsworth (1985). Participants were asked to recall and write

down a personal experience in which they felt one of the five emotions

(amazement, amusement, awe, confusion, or surprise). The order of the

emotions was randomized. The recall instructions were as follow:

"We like you to vividly remember an event you had personally

encountered, and to relive it fully as you recall it. Please follow the following

instructions as closely as possible. Think of a particular time when you felt

[target emotion]. Try to recall as many details of the incident as you can.

Picture this situation in your mind. When you have this memory in mind,

please describe this event in writing below."

In order to aid the participants' recall, several prompts were given:

"What happened in this situation that made you feel (target emotion)?" and

"What did it feel like to be in (target emotion)?" After each recall, they rated

their experiences on several appraisal items before proceeding to the next

emotion, and the procedure was repeated until all five emotions were recalled

and rated. To prevent mental fatigue, a three-minute break was given after the

3rd

emotion.

Measures

All appraisal items were rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7

(extremely). Respective items were averaged to give a composite appraisal


16

score. The studies from which the items were taken or adapted from, and the

Cronbach’s alpha of each measure, are stated below.

Unexpectedness. Unexpectedness was measured using the following

items (α = .65) adapted from Scherer (1997): "To what extent was the event

unexpected?", "To what extent did the event catch you off guard?", and "To

what extent were you prepared for the event to happen?"

Pleasantness. The following items (α = .73) were administered as

measures of pleasantness (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985): "To what extent was the

event a positive experience?", "To what extent did you feel pleasant during the

event?", and "To what extent was the event enjoyable?"

Personal Relevance. Personal relevance was measured using the

following items (α = .73) (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Smith & Ellsworth,

1987): "To what extent was the event important to you?", "To what extent did

the event involve you?", and "To what extent was the event relevant to you?"

Thought-provokingness. The following items (α = .54) were

employed to measure thought-provokingness (Brickner, Harkins & Ostrom,

1986; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986): "To what extent was the event engaging to

you?", and "To what extent did you feel challenged during the event?"

Understandability. Understandability was measured using these items

(α = .72) (Silvia, 2005, 2010): "To what extent was the event

comprehensible?", "To what extent could you figure out how the event was

accomplished?", and "To what extent was the cause of the event easily

understood?"

Grandness. Grandness was measured using the following items (α =

.57) (Shiota et al. 2007): "To what extent did the event make you feel small?",


17

and "To what extent did the event make you realise you were in a greater and

grander scheme of things?"

Results

Objective 1: Appraisal Structure of Amazement

Amazement was hypothesized to be associated with, high

unexpectedness, high pleasantness, high personal relevance, high thought-

provokingness, low understandability and high grandness. The following

analytical strategy was employed. For amazement, each appraisal was

compared against the mid-point score of 4 using one-sample t-tests. If

amazement was high (vs low) on an appraisal, that appraisal should be

significantly higher (vs. lower) than the mid-point. A caveat is that this

approach assumes that scores on self-report measures are meaningful

reflection of the objective experience (e.g., a score of 6 objectively reflects a

strong degree of the appraisal), which may not necessarily be the case (e.g.,

the midpoint 4 may not be the objective mid-point but may reflect high or low

levels of the appraisal). 1

Bearing this caveat in mind, the analyses indicated support for several

hypotheses. Unexpectedness, t(59) = 2.99, p < .004, pleasantness, t(59) = 14.4,

p < .001, personal relevance, t(59) = 6.31, p < .001 and, thought-

provokingness, t(59) = 3.42, p < .001, were significantly higher than the

midpoint. Contrary to hypothesis, understandability was significantly higher

than the mid-point, t(59) = 6.31, p < .001. Although grandness was above the

midpoint, the difference was not significant, t(59)= 1.11 p = .27.

Objective 2: Amazement vs. Overlapping Emotions

1 A neutral state was not included as it was unusual to have participants rate appraisals with

reference to no events. Also the concept of a neutral event could be difficult for the average

person to imagine.


18

A 5 (emotion) × 6 (appraisal) MANOVA was conducted. The analysis

revealed a significant main effect of emotion, F(4, 232) = 25.79, p < .001,η2

= .31, and a significant main effect of appraisal, F(5, 290) = 50.35, p < .001,

η2 = .47. Importantly, there was a significant interaction, F(20, 1160) =

21.72, p < .001, η2 = .27, indicating overall significant difference in appraisal

configurations across the five emotions. Six follow-up repeated measures

ANOVA, each conducted on an appraisal dimension, indicated that there were

significant differences among the five emotions on, unexpectedness, F(4, 232)

= 16.62, p < .001, η2 = .23, pleasantness, F(4, 232) = 71.56, p < .001, η2

=

.55, personal relevance, F(4, 232) = 11.22, p < .001, η2 = .16, thought-

provokingness, F(4, 232) = 4.71, p = .001, η2 = .08, understandability, F(4,

232) = 14.35, p < .001,η2 = .20, and grandness, F(4, 232) = 18.01, p < .001,

η2 = .24.

Next, for each appraisal, four paired-sample t-tests were conducted,

each comparing amazement against an overlapping emotion. The main focus

was to test predicted differences in individual appraisals between each

amazement-overlapping emotion pair, but non-predicted differences were also

explored. Given the current interest on amazement, differences among the four

overlapping emotions were not examined. Results for these analyses are

presented in Table 1.2

2 The p values for these pairwise comparisons were set at .05. No correction was made because

it could make the analyses overly conservative and Type II errors more likely (Morgan, 2007;

Moran, 2003, Perneger, 1998). In addition, amazement was compared with emotions that are

highly similarity to it, rather than emotions that are highly dissimilar to it. Hence, any

difference between amazement and the overlapping emotions is likely to be small and require

a more powerful test to detect.


19

Amazement vs. amusement. As predicted, amazement was rated

higher in personal relevance, t(59) = 4.60, p < .001, d = .79, thought-

provokingness, t(59) = 4.87, p < .001 d = .70, and grandness, t(58) = 2.32, p =

.02, d = .93, than amusement.

Exploring non-predicted differences, amazement was found to be

higher in pleasantness, t(59) = 5.18, p < .001, d = .83, and understandability,

t(59) = 2.63, p = .01, d = .50, than amusement. Amazement and amusement

did not differ in unexpectedness, t(59) = 1.01, p = .28, d = .20.

Amazement vs. awe. As predicted, amazement was rated as higher in

pleasantness than awe, t(58) = 3.16, p = .003, d = .62. Amazement was also

rated as higher in unexpectedness, t(59) = 6.49, p < .001, d = .36.

Exploring non-predicted differences, amazing events were found to be

rated as more thought-provoking than awe eliciting events, t(58) = 2.53, p =

.014, d = .41. However, amazement did not differ from awe with regard to

personal relevance, t(58) = 1.87, p = .06, d = .40, understandability, t(58) =

1.45, p = .10, d = .24, and grandness, t(58) = 1.41, p = .17, d = .27.

Amazement vs. confusion. As predicted, amazement was rated as

more pleasant than confusion, t(59) = 15.84, p < .001, d = 3.02. Amazement

was also rated as higher in understandability, t(59) = 7.05, p < .001, d = 1.17.

For non-predicted differences, amazement was rated as higher in

grandness than confusion, t(59) = 2.48, p = .01, d = .45. There were no

significant differences between amazement and confusion on unexpectedness,

t(59) = -.99, p = .33, d = .17, personal relevance, t(59) = .53, p = .60, d = .10,

and thought-provokingness, t(59) = .35, p = .73, d = .06.


20

Amazement vs. surprise. The prediction of amazement being more

grand than surprise, t(59) = 5.99, p < .001, d = 1.03, was supported. Also as

predicted, amazing events were considered more thought-provoking, t(59) =

3.19, p = .002, d = .49, and were rated as more pleasant than surprise, t(59) =

2.48, p = .02, d = .40. However, contrary to prediction, amazement was not

more personally relevant than surprise, t(59) = -2.06, p = .04, d = .32.

For non-predicted differences, amazement was rated as less

unexpected than surprise, t(59) = -5.00, p < .001, d = .91. Amazement did not

differ from surprise in understandability, t(59) = .61, p = .55 d = .09.

Discussion

With regard to the first objective, the data supported four out of six

postulated appraisal components of amazement. Specifically, amazement was

found to be high on unexpectedness, personal relevance, pleasantness, and

thought-provokingness. Contrary to the hypothesis, amazement was also high

on understandability.

With regard to the second objective, MANOVA indicated significant

overall differences between the five emotions on all appraisals. Subsequently,

24 pairwise comparisons between amazement and individual overlapping

emotions were conducted, 16 of which were found significant. Eleven

predictions were made concerning differences between amazement and

overlapping emotions, ten of which were supported. Together, these results

indicated the following. First, the five emotions can be strongly differentiated

from each other. Second, amazement in particular can be differentiated from

the overlapping emotions. Third, differences between amazement and the

overlapping emotions were theoretically grounded. The results indicated that


21

compared with amusement, amazement was higher on the appraisal of

personally relevance, thought-provokingness and grandness. Compared to

awe, amazement was higher on the appraisal of unexpectedness and

pleasantness. Compared to confusion, amazement was higher on the appraisal

of pleasantness and understandability. Lastly, compared to surprise,

amazement was higher on the appraisal of pleasantness, thought-

provokingness and grandness. Overall, the results indicate that amazement is

not simply a variant of the overlapping emotions as there are strong evidences

to show that it is a distinct emotion.

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY 2

There were several limitations in Study 1 that should be addressed.

One limitation was that recall methods might elicit only stereotypical notions

of the recalled construct. Hence, the emotion recalled and appraisal scores

might not be an accurate reflection of actual experiences (Parkinson, 1997).

Another limitation was that participants’ recall might have been distorted by

bias memory effects (Frijda, 1993; Levine & Safer, 2002). The third limitation

was, even if the recall data were reliable, they might not necessarily reflect

real-life associations between amazement and appraisals. To address these

concerns, Study 2 utilized event sampling in which participants reported their

ongoing emotions and appraisals over the span of about a week. This method

thus minimised stereotypic responses and recall biases as participants were

probed on real-time experiences and subjective feelings. Because the data

were collected in the participants’ natural environment, they were of higher

ecological validity than the laboratory data in Study 1.


22

Methods

Participants

133 undergraduates from NUS participated for course credits.

Participants were told that they would be completing online measures several

times within a week and that course credits would only be given if they

complete the measures at least twice. As the study was conducted during the

semester, we anticipated some students to not be able to complete all six

surveys, hence in order to optimize responses without artificially increasing

attrition, we decided to include participants who completed at least two of the

surveys in the analysis. Also, we deployed a robust analysis strategy via

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM; Bryk, & Raudenbush, 1992) that would

account for missing data, hence a cut off point at two surveys was chosen. 114

participants (88 females and 19 males; mean age = 19.80, SD = 1.40) fulfilled

this criteria and formed the current sample.

Procedure

Participants completed online measures six times (i.e., observations),

once a day, within the period of about one week. The observations were

spaced at least 12 hours apart. The observations were made on the hour

between 10 AM and 8 PM (to coincide with the participants’ waking hours),

and the timing of the six observations for each day was randomly determined

by a randomizer website3. The specific timings generated were, 6 PM, 2 PM,

12 PM, 4 PM, 12 PM, and 6 PM. In each observation, participants received a

text message sent via an online portal provided by Mobile One on their cell-

phone reminding them to complete the measures within 3 hours. This portal

3 https://www.randomizer.org/


23

allowed mass text messages to be sent through a computer at predetermined

schedules. SurveyGizmo was the online survey platform of choice as it

provided a mobile-friendly interface, participants entered their responses by

simply tapping on the options. All responses were then collated automatically

by SurveyGizmo into an excel sheet for analysis. The 3 hour period gave

adequate time for the participants who had to rate the measures in the midst of

their daily routines which included lectures and social activities. Participants

were told that they could complete the survey at any location of their own

choosing. All participants had to own a smartphone with mobile data which

would enable them to complete the survey within 3 hours. Participants who

did not complete the questionnaires within 3 hours had their data discarded.

Their phone numbers were obtained during the sign-up for this study.

Participants completed the same measures in all six observations. Upon

logging into SurveyGizmo on their phones, they were instructed to key in their

prescribed participant code and answer questions pertaining to emotions and

appraisals based on their current feelings and thoughts at the point of doing the

questionnaire.

After the sixth observation, participants completed a demographic

questionnaire and were debriefed through email. Participants were given

opportunities to meet up with the experimenter should they have additional

queries.

Measures

All items were rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7

(extremely). Respective items were averaged to give a composite appraisal

score. Cronbach’s alpha of each measure are stated below.


24

Unexpectedness. Unexpectedness was measured using the following

items (α = . 58), adapted from Scherer (1997): "Is the event unexpected?",

"Did the event catch you off guard?", and "Were you prepared for this event?"

Pleasantness. The following items (α = .91) were administered as

measures of pleasantness (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985): "Is this event a positive

experience for you?", "Is the event pleasant?", and "Is the event enjoyable?"

Personal Relevance. Personal relevance was measured by the

following items (α = .78) (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Smith & Ellsworth,

1987): "Is this event important to you?", "Does this event involve you?", and

"Is this event relevant to you?"

Thought-provokingness. The following items (α = . 75) were

employed (Brickner, Harkins & Ostrom, 1986; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) to

measure thought-provokingness: "Does the event challenge you to think more

about it?", and "Does the event engage you intellectually?"

Understandability. Understandability was measured using these items

(α = .72) (Silvia, 2005, 2010): "Is this event comprehensible?", "Can you

figure out the causes of this event?", and "Can you understand the causes of

this event?"

Grandness. Grandness was measured using these items (α = . 63)

(Shiota et al. 2007): "Does this event make you feel small?", "Do you feel part

of something larger?", "Does this event make you forget about your day-to-

day concerns?", and "Does this event make you feel that you are part of a

greater and grander scheme of things?"


25

Emotions. Questions about the participant's current emotions were

also included, specifically, they were asked the extent they felt amazed,

amused, awe, puzzled4 and surprised.

Results

Across all 6 sessions, there were 569 responses. The means and

standard deviations of the emotions were calculated by collapsing responses

across participants and observations. The results are presented in Table 2.

To conduct a correlation analysis between the emotions, scores from

all observations were first averaged to form an index for each participant.

Thereafter, a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted with all 5 emotions

across all participants to determine how each emotion relates to the other. The

results are presented below in Table 2. While the results show that amazement

was significantly correlated with the other emotions, through subsequent

analyses of appraisal configurations (Objective 2), amazement was shown to

be highly different. A second Pearson correlation analysis was conducted with

the appraisal dimensions. The results are presented in Table 3. While most of

the appraisal dimensions were significantly correlated with each other,

majority of them were weakly related with only three pairs being moderately

related (Rule of thumb: Dancey & Reidy, 2004). None of the appraisals

correlated strongly, adding evidences of validity that the appraisal dimensions

were measuring separate constructs.

Objective 1: Appraisal Structure of Amazement

4 As the sample consisted of students, whose self-worth are heavily based on academic

achievement (Crocker, Luhtanen, Copper, & Bouvrette, 2003), the term "confused" was

replaced by "puzzled" in the hope of avoiding connotations that they are incompetent, which

could have caused them to be defensive (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001).


26

To reiterate, the first objective concerns the appraisal profile of

amazement. To test this, I examined the relationship between amazement and

each appraisal dimension. HLM (Bryk, & Raudenbush, 1992) was employed

to examine the within-participant relationships between amazement and

individual appraisal dimension. Six Level 1 regression models were tested. In

each model, an appraisal dimension was regressed onto amazement5.

Several considerations were made in the decision to not centre the

predictor variables in the HLM analyses. Centering establishes a meaningful

zero for certain variables (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). For example, in a model

where IQ is a predictor of school achievement, without centering, the intercept

would be meaningless as a zero in IQ does not make sense, hence centering

would be an appropriate strategy as it makes the intercept meaningful by

centering it to the grand mean or group mean. In the current study, a score of

zero is already meaningful as it implies the absence of the appraisal in the

event. It has also been suggested that uncentered models are not different from

grand mean centered models (Wu & Wooldridge, 2005). With these

considerations, the predictors in this study were uncentered.

The results indicated that unexpectedness, b = .14, p < .01,

pleasantness, b = .33, p < .01, thought-provokingness, b = .43, p < .01, and

grandness, b = .39, p < .01, were positively associated with amazement.

Contrary to the hypothesis, understandability, b = .09, p < .05, was positively

associated with amazement while personal relevance, b = .07, p = .09, was not

associated with amazement. In summary, amazement was positively

5 The regression of appraisal onto amazement was conducted, instead of the regression of

amazement on appraisal, so as to provide continuity with Objective 2, but both would provide

the same results.


27

associated with, unexpectedness, pleasantness, thought-provokingness,

understandability and grandness.

Objective 2: Amazement vs. Overlapping Emotions

Objective 2 concerns differences between amazement and the other

emotions on each appraisal dimension. To test this, I examined the extent to

which amazement and each of the other emotions independently predicted

each appraisal dimension. To this end, several HLM Level 1 regression

models were tested. In each model, an appraisal was regressed onto

amazement and one other emotion. A total of 42 models (6 appraisals × 7

other emotions) were tested. Models comprising two emotion predictors each

were preferred because models with all 5 correlated emotion predictors would

be highly unstable and would run the risk of multi-collinearity. If amazement

predicted the appraisal dimension and the other emotion did not, it would

mean that the amazement was a stronger predictor of that appraisal dimension.

Conversely, if amazement did not predict the appraisal dimension whereas the

other emotion did, it would mean that the other emotion was the stronger

predictor. If both predicted the appraisal dimension, the most pertinent point

for the current purpose was that, regardless of which predictive power was

stronger, amazement had explained additional variance of the appraisal

dimension not accounted for by the other emotion, indicating its uniqueness

from that emotion. If neither predicted the appraisal dimension, it would

simply mean that amazement failed to predict the emotion when that emotion

was controlled for.


28

The results are shown in Table 4. As with Study 1, for each

amazement-other emotion pair, I first report results for predicted differences,

followed by those for non-predicted differences.

Amazement vs. amusement. Amazement positively predicted

grandness and thought-provokingness independent of amusement.

Exploring non-predicted differences, amazement positively predicted

understandability and unexpectedness independent of amusement.

Amazement vs. awe. Amazement positively and independently

predicted unexpectedness from awe.

Exploring non-predicted differences, amazement positively predicted

thought-provokingness and understandability independent of awe.

Amazement vs. puzzlement. Amazement positively predicted

pleasantness and understandability independent of puzzlement.

Exploring non-hypothesized difference, puzzlement positively

predicted unexpectedness independent of amazement.

Amazement vs. surprise. Amazement positively predicted

pleasantness and thought-provokingness independent of surprise.

For non-hypothesized difference, amazement positively predicted

understandability independent of surprise.

Discussion

With regard to Objective 1, the data supported four out of six

postulated appraisal components of amazement. Amazement was found to be

high on unexpectedness, pleasantness, thought-provokingness, and grandness.

Contrary to hypotheses, amazement was found to be high on understandability

while personal relevance was not associated with it. In summary, amazement


29

was positively associated with, unexpectedness, pleasantness, thought-

provokingness, understandability, and grandness.

With regard to Objective 2, amazement was predictive of the

appraisals over and above the other emotions. Amazement predicted grandness

and thought-provokingness independent of amusement. Amazement predicted

unexpectedness independent of awe. Amazement predicted pleasantness and

understandability independent of puzzlement. Amazement predicted

pleasantness and thought-provokingness independent of surprise.

Through the usage of the ecological measure, this study had

circumvented problems of recall biases and heuristic responses that would be

prevalent in studies that used recall and vignettes methods. Study 2 also

provided additional evidences on the appraisal configuration of amazement as

well as its distinctiveness from its related emotions.

CHAPTER FOUR

General Discussion

Appraisal configuration of amazement

Both studies highlighted and confirmed several of the hypothesized

appraisal dimensions of amazement. Through both studies, amazement is high

in unexpectedness, pleasantness, thought-provokingness and

understandability. According to the appraisal configuration perspective, the

experience of amazement entails this appraisal configuration (Roseman et al.,

1996; Scherer, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985).

In order to understand how appraisals elicit amazement, it is useful to

adopt the perspective of emotions as a continuous process with each appraisal

revising the subjective experience of the event (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).


30

The first aspect of an amazing event would be the appraisal of

unexpectedness, a person would evaluate if the event is schema consistent

(expected) or inconsistent (unexpected). More cognitive resources will be

directed to events that are schema inconsistent (Hastie, 1980; Hastie & Kumar,

1979; Norman & Bobrow, 1975). Since amazing events are unexpected, they

orient the attention of the person towards the event. This is an adaptive

response as unexpected events typically pose possible danger due to its

unfamiliarity. Hence directing attention to it allows the person to mitigate the

situation if the event was indeed dangerous.

Due to the unfamiliarity of an event, avoidance behaviours might be

expected. Without an appraisal of valence, a person might approach the event

with fear and caution or simply withdraw from it. However, what makes an

amazed person engage this unfamiliar event is the highly pleasurable nature of

amazement. This pleasantness overcomes the sense of uncertainty, signals the

event to be safe and encourages approaching behaviours towards the event

(Fredrickson, 1998). In line with the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson,

2001), this pleasantness functions as a resource which drives a person to seek

information about an event with fervour. This is reinforced by the fact that

amazing events were appraised to be the most pleasant emotion out of the

other related emotions (from Study 1) and that it consistently predicted

pleasantness independently, over and above the other emotions (Study 2).

Human beings are information seekers that aim to deduce causalities

and make sense of their environment (Heider, 1958), the unexpected and yet

pleasant nature of the amazing event, compels a person to approach the event

and understand it. Cognitive resources are devoted to thinking about the


31

amazing event, trying to comprehend its incoherence and assimilating it to an

existing schematic structure. Because of the thinking process, the amazing

event is then appraised to be thought-provoking. This echoes the etymological

roots of the word amaze where an amazed person is stupefied and deep in

thought.

As more thoughts and cognitive resources are devoted to the event, it

becomes more understandable to the person. After thinking about the event

deeply, the person would successfully assimilated it to his/her mental

structures either by accommodating the event as an extension of an existing

schema or through the creation of a new schema for the event. After the

process of assimilation, amazement would be experienced.

While this paper postulates amazing events to be low in

understandability, as the literature suggested that amazing events tend to be

incongruent with existing schemas, the data from the two studies suggested

otherwise. There are three possible interpretations as to why amazing events

were appraised to be high in understandability. The most obvious, but in my

view, unlikely interpretation is that the person fully understands the causality

and details of the amazing event and is able to make sense of its incongruent

nature. For instance, upon pondering further, the person figures out that the

mimosa plant closes due to an imbalance in turgidity which results in a shift of

water cells when touched, causing the leaf to be less turgid in the area where it

was touched, eventually collapsing and giving the illusion of it closing (Song,

Yeom & Lee, 2014). While this is possible, it is unlikely because sophisticated

phenomena are not easily understood through introspection. We offer a second

interpretation which is that the event is successful assimilated to an existing,


32

broad and vaguely defined mental schema, giving a sense of understandability

towards the event. For instance, the person who is amazed by the closing of

the mimosa plant may not fully comprehend the mechanical details but still

appraises it as understandable because the knowledge is assimilated into a

global schema that, although does not explain every details of the event, is

nonetheless sufficiently satisfying to him or her, such as “this is an act of

nature". As this account is speculative, more studies should be done to verify

this. A third account could be that amazing events are initially low in

understandibility, but through a process of cognitive processing, they become

more understandable which in turn leads to amazement. This account suggests

that both the initial and eventual understandibility appraisal of the eliciting

situation are to be considered for the elicitation of amazement. This account

however needs to be further tested as this study did not measure initial

understandibility of an event.6

While this research does not investigate if the appraisals of amazement

occurs all at once or sequentially, this paper is inclined to Ellsworth and

Scherer's (2003) perspective that the experience of amazement stems from a

continuous process of each appraisal revising the subjective experience of the

event eventually leading to the experience of amazement. Future studies can

confirm this hypothesis.

Amazement and the related emotions

This research strongly supports the differentiation of amazement from

four related emotions. The results show amazement to have a distinct appraisal

configuration from the related states.

6 I thank an anonymous reviewer for the third account.


33

Amazement and amusement. Amazement is higher in grandness,

thought-provokingness, and understandability than amusement. This is

consistent with McGraw and Warren's (2010) proposal that amusement is the

result of a benign violation of a weakly committed norm. Being benign,

amusing events are less grand and therefore command less cognitive

resources, rendering it less thought-provoking than amazing events. A person

experiencing amusement could easily brush the event off since it is benign. It

is unclear why amusement is less understandable than amazement. It is

possible that because the violation is towards a norm (despite a weakly

committed one), the viewer of the event might still feel slight discomfort

witnessing the violation. This discomfort may signal an inability to fully

understand the causes of the amusing event. As this is speculative, further

research can test if this is another characteristic of amusement.

Amazement and awe. Amazement is more thought-provoking and

unexpected than awe. However, in terms of grandness, amazement does not

differ from awe. Awe is characterised by vastness and the need for

accommodation (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). It is not surprising for amazing

events to be more unexpected than awe as people who experience awe might

already have a preconceived expectation of the event (i.e. going to the Grand

Canyon or queuing up to see a celebrity). It is interesting that amazement is

more thought-provoking than awe as this could possibly mean that amazing

events tend to be more difficult to accommodate into mental schemas. Due to

its unexpected nature, it is likely that amazing event might not have an

existing mental schematic structure for it to be readily accommodated into,

hence there is a propensity for a person to ponder deeper on the event to


34

assimilate it to an appropriate mental structure. Another interesting finding is

that amazement does not differ from awe in terms of grandness. Awe tends to

be associated with grandness due to the vastness component. Vastness does

not solely imply physical size but could also be in terms of complexity or even

social status (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). As amazing events do not have to be

physically vast, it is likely that amazing events are grand in terms of

complexity, impact, and its ability to induce thoughts about being in a greater

scheme of things.

Amazement and confusion. Amazement is more pleasant and

understandable than confusion. Both emotions are equally thought-provoking

and they are considered to be knowledge emotions as they both signal the

incoherence of an event (Silvia, 2009; Mandler, 1984, 1990). However, a

salient difference between the two is that confusion is a negative emotion

associated with the inability to understand the event while amazement is a

positive emotion that is associated with a drive to make sense of the event. As

expected, amazement is more pleasant than confusion. Considering the

appraisal dimensions of understandability and thought-provokingness, several

interesting implications can be made. First, it noteworthy that while both are

equally thought-provoking, amazing events are more understandable than

confusing events. It is likely that while both events tend to be difficult to

accommodate to existing schemas initially, an amazed person would persist on

more than a confused person. As a result, the amazed person understands the

event more than the confused person. There are other pedagogical implications

for this, for example, while a confusing lesson would induce the same amount

of thoughts as an amazing lesson, a teacher should consider adopting the latter


35

strategy as it will allow further understanding of the lesson. This echoes past

studies by Bowman (1986) and McCormack (1985) that found amazement to

be effective in a school setting.

Amazement and surprise. Amazement is more pleasant and more

thought-provoking than surprise. As surprise can be induced by either positive

or negative events, it is expected for amazement to be more pleasant as it is

elicited only by positive events. Surprise can also be induced through

superficial changes such as font change in linguistic stimuli which do not have

the capacity to make a person think of deeper meaning about the event or think

beyond it (Meyer, Reisenzein & Schutzwohl, 1997; Reisenzein, Borgen,

Holtbernd & Matz, 2006; Whittlesea & Williams, 2001). Hence it is no

surprise that surprise as an emotion is less thought-provoking than amazement.

Because of these features, surprise can be considered to be a rudimentary

response to an unexpected event, but perhaps through deeper thinking and if

the event is positive, amazement could be experienced. This would in line with

Plutchik's (1982) postulation that amazement is a more intense version of

surprise, and through this research, we can infer in what aspects it might be

more intense.

Evolutionary significance of amazement

By examining the characteristics of amazement, several evolutionary

functions of amazement can be postulated. From the literature review,

amazement has been related to positive outcomes in learning, such as

development of creative thinking, observational skills, healthy skepticism,

increase in curiosity and analytical skills (McCormack, 1985; Vidler &

Levine, 1981; Siegelman, 1985). It is likely that amazement is a knowledge


36

emotion that increases persistence in seeking knowledge to reduce

incoherence. The highly pleasant feeling of amazement gives additional

resources to seek new knowledge despite the event being cognitively more

effortful (Fredrickson, 1998).

Plutchik (1982) proposed surprise to be an orienting emotion that

signals novelty in the environment. He also proposed amazement to be a more

intense variation of surprise. This research has confirmed that amazement is

more pleasant and thought-provoking than surprise. Like surprise, amazement

also signals something novel and unexpected in the environment. Since

surprise can either be elicited by an event that is either positive or negative, a

person could withdraw from the event if it was appraised to be negative.

However for amazement, the person persists in seeking and thinking further

about the event due to its highly pleasant nature. Also due to this pleasant

nature of amazement, it is likely that it induces a stronger sense of curiosity

and stronger persistence (Fredrickson, 2001).

In summary, amazement is evolutionary adaptive on the individual

level and the group level (Wilson & Sober, 1994). On the individual level, the

amazed person is motivated by the pleasantness of the event, and is unfazed by

the unknown thus seeking out new knowledge. Being motivated to thinking

further and deeper about the event, the person tries to make sense of things,

incorporating new schema that would equip him/her for future opportunities or

threats. On the group level, amazement advances the group as individuals can

be motivated to work towards a common goal that produces innovation.

Leaders and innovators could amaze their followers with ideas and thoughts


37

which inspire them to work harder and persist towards a common goal. Future

research can be focused to test these hypotheses.

Limitations and future directions

While this research had shown strong support for amazement to be a

distinct emotions with a set of appraisal configuration different from related

emotions, an argument could be made that both studies did not manipulate

amazement directly, rendering the findings less valid. However, past studies

that also did not manipulate emotions directly had been well validated. Studies

had validated the recall method (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) to successfully

elicit emotions as well as the event sampling method to be valid methods to

test appraisal predictions (Tong, et al., 2007). Another practical reason why

this research did not adopt a direct manipulation of amazement was that it was

difficult to manipulate an emotion without knowing its characteristics.

Without first empirically defining amazement, a manipulation of amazement

will be critiqued to be of personal interpretation instead of one that is driven

by data. With this research, future academics are able to develop methods to

induce amazement directly via the appraisal dimensions drawn by this

research.

The understanding of amazement can be further enhanced through a

qualitative analysis of the contents in Study 1. Properties of the eliciting

events can be investigated further to examine whether there are appraisal

patterns that distinguish amazement from its related emotions. Variables such

as divine vs. human agency, sensory perception, and whether the event

happens solitarily or in the company of others can further broaden the


38

understanding of amazement. Coding efforts and analysis are currently in

progress.

Overall, this research contributes to the understanding of amazement as

an emotion. Amazement is an emotion with a distinct set of appraisal

configuration that is also unique from related emotions. Future studies can

examine further differences such as the action tendencies of amazement

compared to other emotions.


39

References

Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and Personality: Vol. 1. Psychological

aspects. New York: Columbia University Press.

Arnold, M. B. (1945). Physiological differentiation of emotional states.

Psychological Review, 52, 35-48.

Bowman, R. P. (1986). The Magic Counselor: Using magic tricks as a tool to

teach children guidance lessons. Elementary School Guidance &

Counseling, 21, 128-138

Brickner; M., Harkins, S., & Ostrom, T. (1986). Personal involvement:

Thought provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 763-769.

Bryk, A.S. & Raudenbush, S.W., 1992. Hierarchical linear models:

Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Coghlan, A., Buckley, R. & Weaver, D. (2012). A framework for analysing

awe in tourism experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 1710-

1714

Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M., Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies

of Self-Worth in College Students: Theory and Measurement. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894-908

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth.

Psychological Review, 108, 593–623

D’Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R., & Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion can be

beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 153-170.


40

Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2004). Statistics without Maths for Psychology: using

SPSS for Windows, London: Prentice Hall.

Darwin, C. (1872) "Chapter 12: Surprise, Astonishment, Fear, Horror", 278-

308., The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. New York:

D. Appleton & Company.

Edwards, M. M., Wang, F., Tejura, T., Patel, A., Majewski, S. & Donnefeld,

A. E. (2010). Maternal reactions to two-dimensional compared to

three-dimensional foetal ultrasonography. Journal of Psychosomatic

Obstetrics & Gynecology, 31, 53-59

Einstein, A. (2007). The world as I see it. California: The Book Tree

Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of

emotions. In Cole, J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp.

207-282). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In

R. J. Davidson, H. Goldsmith, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of

Affective Sciences. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). From appraisal to emotion:

Differences among unpleasant feelings. Motivation and Emotion, 12,

271–302.

Ellsworth, P. C. & Tong, E. M. W. (2006). What Does It Mean To Be Angry

At Yourself? Categories, Appraisals, and the Problem of Language.

Emotion, 6, 572 -586.

Enders, C. K. & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering Predictor Variables in Cross-

Sectional Multilevel Models: A New Look at an Old Issue.

Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.


41

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What Good Are Positive Emotions? Review of

General Psychology, 2, 300-319.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive

psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.

American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.56.3.218

Frijda, N. H. (1987). Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency.

Cognition and Emotion, 1, 115-143. DOI:

10.1080/02699938708408043

Frijda, N. H. (1993). The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition and

Emotion, 7, 357-387.

Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion,

appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57, 212-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.57.2.212

Giuliani, N.R., McRae, K. & Gross, J.J. (2008) The up- and down-regulation

of amusement: Experiential, behavioral and autonomic

consequences. Emotion, 8, 714-719.

Harper, D. (2014). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=

amaze&searchmode=none

Hastie, R. (1980). Memory for behavioral information that confirms or

contradicts a personality impression. In R. Hastie, T. M. Ostrom, E. B.

Ebbesen, R. S. Wyer, Jr., D. L. Hamilton, & D. E. Carlston (Eds.),

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=amaze&searchmode=none

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=amaze&searchmode=none


42

Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 155–

177). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979). Person memory: Personality traits as

organizing principles in memory for behaviors. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 37, 25–38.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York:

Wiley.

Hertenstein, M. J., Holmes R., McCullough, M. & Keltner, D. (2009). The

communication of emotion via touch. Emotion, 9, 566-

573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016108

Hess, U. & Kleck, R. E. (1990). Differentiating emotion elicited and deliberate

emotional facial expressions. European Journal of Social Psychology,

20, 369-385.

Keltner, D. & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual and

aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 297-314

Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. (1993). Beyond simple

pessimism: Effects of sadness and anger on social perception. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 740–752.

Kuppens, P., van Mechelen, I., Smits, D. J. M., & de Boeck, P. (2003). The

appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity, and sufficiency of

components. Emotion, 3, 254-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-

3542.3.3.254

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University

Press.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0016108

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.3.254

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.3.254


43

Levine, L. J., & Safer, M. A. (2002). Sources of bias in memory for emotions.

Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 11, 169- 173.

doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00193

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146-159

Llewelyn, J. (2001). On the saying that philosophy begins in thaumazein. A

Journal of Art, Context, and Enquiry, 4, 48-57

Ludden, G.D.S., Kudrowitz, B. M., Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Hekkert, P.

(2012) Surprise & humor in product design. Designing sensory

metaphors in multiple modalities. International Journal of Humor

research, 25, 285-310.

Lustig, S. L. (1994). The AIDS Prevention Magic Show: Avoiding the Tragic

with Magic. Public Health Reports, 109, 162-167

Moran, M. D. (2003). Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in

ecological studies. Oikos, 100, 403-405.

Morgan, J. F. (2007). p value fetishism and use of the Bonferroni adjustment.

Evidence Based Mental Health, 10, 34-35. doi: 10.1136/ebmh.10.2.34

Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New

York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Mandler, G. (1990). Interruption (discrepancy) theory: review and extensions.

In S. Fisher, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), On the move: The psychology of

change and transition (pp. 13e32). Chichester: Wiley.

McCormack, A.J. (1985). Teaching with magic: Easy ways to hook your class

on science. Learning , 14, 62-67.


44

McGraw, A. P. & Warren, C. (2010). Benign violations: Making immoral

behavior funny. Psychological Science, 21, 1141-1149

Meyer, W., Reisenzein, R. & Schutzwohl, A. (1997). Toward a process

analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion,

21, 251-274

Moran, M. D. (2003). Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in

ecological studies. Oikos, 100, 403-40. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-

0706.2003.12010.x

Morgan, J. F. (2007). p Value fetishism and use of the Bonferroni adjustment.

Evidence Based Mental Health, 10, 34-35 doi: 10.1136/ebmh.10.2.34

Norman, D.A., & Bobrow, D.J. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited

processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44-64.

Parkinson, B., Roper, A., & Simons, G. (2009). Appraisal ratings in diary

reports of reasonable and unreasonable anger. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 39, 82-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.470

Parkinson, B. (1997). Untangling the appraisal-emotion connection.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 62-79.

Perneger, T. V. (1998) . What's wrong with Bonferonni adjustments. BMJ,

316, 1236-1238.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion:

Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-

Verlag

Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New

York, International Universities Press

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.470


45

Plutchik, R. (1982). A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions. Social Science

Information, 21, 529-553

Reisenzein, R. (2000) Exploring the Strength of Association between the

Components of Emotion Syndromes: The Case of Surprise, Cognition

and Emotion, 14, 1-38, DOI: 10.1080/026999300378978

Reisenzein R, Bördgen S, Holtbernd T, & Matz D. (2006). Evidence for strong

dissociation between emotion and facial displays: The case of surprise.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 295-315

Reisenzein, R. & Hofmann, T. (1990). An investigation of dimensions of

cognitive appraisal in emotion using the repertory grid technique.

Motivation and Emotion. 14, 1-26.

Reisenzein, R., & Spielhofer, C. (1994). Subjectively salient dimensions of

emotional appraisal. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 1-47.

Rind, B. (1992). Effects of Impressions of Amazement and Foolishness on

Compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1656-1665

Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory.

In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol.

5. Emotions, relationships, and health (pp. 11-36). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage.

Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants

of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory.

Cognition and Emotion, 10, 241-277.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240


46

Schachter, S. & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological

determinants of emotion state. Psychological Review, 69, 379-399.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046234

Scherer, K. R. (1984). Emotion as a multi-component process: A model and

some cross-cultural data. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and

social psychology: Emotions, relationships and health (pp. 37-63).

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Scherer, K. R. (1997). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing

theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition and Emotion, 11,

113-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999397379962

Schneider, K. J. (2011) Awakening to an Awe-Based Psychology. The

Humanistic Psychologist, 39, 247-252, DOI:

10.1080/08873267.2011.592464

Sherry, P. (2013) The Varieties of Wonder. Philosophical Investigations. 36,

340-354

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D. & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe:

Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition and

Emotion, 21, 944-963

Siegelman, R. (1985). Magic makes them think. Gifted Children Monthly, 6,

15-16, 20.

Silvia, P. J. (2005). Cognitive appraisals and interest in visual art: Exploring

an appraisal theory of aesthetic emotions. Empirical Studies of the

Arts, 23, 119-133.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046234

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026999397379962


47

Silvia, P. J. (2009). Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride,

surprise and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 48–51.

Silvia, P. J. (2010). Confusion and interest: The role of knowledge emotions in

aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the

Arts, 4, 75-80

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational

themes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233-269.

doi:10.1080/02699939308409189

Smith, R. H., Kim, S. H., & Parrott, W. G. (1988). Envy and jealousy:

Semantic problems and experiential distinctions. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 401-409.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in

emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion

related to taking an exam. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,

52, 475-488. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.475

Song, K., Yeom, E. & Lee, S. J. (2014). Real-time imaging of pulvinus

bending in Mimosa pudica. Scientific Reports, 4, 1-8.

Stiensmeier-pelster, J., Martini, A. & Reisenzein, R. (1995) The role of

surprise in the attribution process, Cognition and Emotion, 9, 5-31,

DOI: 10.1080/02699939508408963

Tangney, J. P. (1995). Recent advances in the empirical study of shame and

guilt. American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 1132–1145.

http://explore.georgetown.edu/publications/index.cfm?Action=View&DocumentID=63679

http://explore.georgetown.edu/publications/index.cfm?Action=View&DocumentID=63679


48

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig J., Mashek D. & Hastings M. (2011). Assessing Jail

Inmates' Proneness to Shame and Guilt: Feeling Bad About the

Behavior or the Self? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 710-734.

Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J., Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. (2009). Authentic

and hubristic pride: The affective core of self-esteem and narcissism.

Self and Identity, 8, 196–213.

Tracy, J. L. & Robins, R. W.(2007). The psychological structure of pride: A

tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,

506-525. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506

Tong, E. M. W., Bishop, G. D., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P., Diong, S.M.,

Khader, M. & Ang, J. (2007) Emotion and appraisal: A study using

ecological momentary assessment, Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1361-

1381, DOI: 10.1080/02699930701202012

Vidler, D.C., & Levine, J. (1981). Curiosity, magic, and the teacher.

Education, 101, 273- 275.

Whittlesea, B. W. A. & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution

hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of

familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,

and Cognition, 27, 14-33

Wilson, D. S. & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human

behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17.585-654

Wu, Y-W. B., & Wooldridge, P. J. (2005). The Impact of Centering First-

Level Predictors on Individual and Contextual Effects in Multilevel

Data Analysis. Nursing Research, 54, 212–216.

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506

http://philpapers.org/s/David%20Sloan%20Wilson

http://philpapers.org/s/Elliott%20Sober

http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=WILRGS&proxyId=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F235744327_Reconstructing_the_real_unit_of_selection%2Ffile%2Fd912f5130bd26b8795.pdf

http://philpapers.org/go.pl?id=WILRGS&proxyId=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F235744327_Reconstructing_the_real_unit_of_selection%2Ffile%2Fd912f5130bd26b8795.pdf

http://philpapers.org/asearch.pl?pub=120


49


50

Table 1

Differences between amazement, amusement, awe, confusion and surprise on six appraisal dimensions.

Amazement Amusement Awe Confusion Surprise

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

GRD 4.22a 1.52 2.38

b 1.46 3.80

ac 1.61 3.53

c 1.56 2.73

b 1.40

RLV 5.03ab

1.38 3.84c 1.62 4.49

ad 1.30 4.88

bd 1.50 5.47

c 1.40

PSN 5.93 a 1.03 4.91

bc 1.41 5.23

bd 1.26 2.36

a 1.32 5.42

cd 1.48

TPV 4.53a 1.21 3.71

bce 1.12 3.99

bd 1.43 4.44

ad 1.58 3.96

ce 1.10

UND 4.88ab

1.08 4.29c 1.26 4.60

acd 1.25 3.53

e 1.22 4.76

bd 1.32

UEX 4.63ab

1.63 4.33ac

1.42 4.07c 1.33 4.89

b 1.37 5.86

d 1.00

GRD, Grandness; RLV, Personal relevance; PSN, Pleasantness; TPV, Thought-provokingness; UND, Understandability; UEX,

Unexpectedness. Means that share the same superscripts do not differ significantly at p < .05


51

Table 2

Means, standard deviation and correlation between emotions

Amazement Amusement Awe Puzzlement Surprise

Amazement

Amusement .45**

Awe .66** .47**

Puzzlement .41** .21** .35**

Surprise .51** .40** .48** .45**

Mean 2.43 2.52 2.40 2.35 2.05

SD 1.63 4.65 1.57 1.57 1.41

* p < .05. ** p < .01


52

Table 3

Means, standard deviation and correlation between appraisal dimensions

UEX PNS RLV TPV UND GRD

UEX

PNS -.19

RLV -.19 .28**

TPV .02 .02 .38**

UND -.34 .31** .47** .23**

GRD .15** .22** .28** .02 .15**

Mean 2.67 3.88 4.71 3.30 4.29 2.58

SD 1.19 1.62 1.46 1.72 1.39 1.31

GRD, Grandness; RLV, Personal relevance; PSN, Pleasantness; TPV, Thought-provokingness; UEX, Unexpectedness; UND,

Understandability.

* p < .05. ** p < .01


53

Table 4

HLM analysis examining amazement and another emotions with appraisals as outcome

AMZ vs. AMU AMZ vs. AWE AMZ vs. PUZ AMZ vs. SUR

AMZ AMU AMZ AWE AMZ PUZ AMZ SUR

b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE

GRD .35*** 0.04 .11** 0.04 .26*** 0.04 .22*** 0.04 .32*** 0.04 .20*** 0.03 .33*** 0.04 .16*** 0.04

RLV 0.08 0.05 -0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.05

PSN .17*** 0.04 .34*** 0.04 .20*** 0.05 .21*** 0.05 .41*** 0.04 -.2*** 0.04 .32*** 0.05 -0.004 0.05

TPV .46*** 0.05 -0.08 0.05 .39*** 0.06 0.09 0.05 .27*** 0.05 .40*** 0.05 .41*** 0.05 0.07 0.06

UND .07** 0.02 0.02 0.03 .12*** 0.03 -0.04 0.04 .11*** 0.03 -.07** 0.04 .12*** 0.03 -0.08 0.05

UEX .11** 0.04 .07* 0.04 .11* 0.05 0.05 0.04 .07* 0.04 .20*** 0.04 -0.02 0.03 .40*** 0.04

Note. Each appraisal was regressed onto amazement and one other emotion.

GRD, Grandness; RLV, Personal relevance; PSN, Pleasantness; TPV, Thought-provokingness; UEX, Unexpectedness; UND,

Understandability; AMZ, Amazement; AMU, Amusement; AWE, Awe; PUZ, Puzzlement; SUR, Surprise.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

THE APPRAISAL PROFILES OF AMAZEMENT: EXPLORING THE ... · emotions such as amusement, awe,...

Documents

Transcript of THE APPRAISAL PROFILES OF AMAZEMENT: EXPLORING THE ... · emotions such as amusement, awe,...