Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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).
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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,
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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,
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF 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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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,
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF 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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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?",
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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/
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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?"
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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).
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF 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).
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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,
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.),
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
49
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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
Running head: APPRAISAL COMPONENTS OF AMAZEMENT
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.