“Worse than I anticipated” or “This isn’t so bad”?: The impact of affective forecasting accuracy on self-reported task performance
Seth Kaplan,Carolyn Winslow,Lydia Craig,Xue Lei,Carol Wong,Jill Bradley-Geist,Martin Biskup,Gregory Ruark
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235973
IF: 3.7
2020-07-13
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Various motivational theories emphasize that desired emotional outcomes guide behavioral choices. Although motivational theory and research has emphasized that behavior is affected by desired emotional outcomes, little research has focused on the impact of anticipated feelings about engaging in behavior. The current research seeks to partly fill that void. Specifically, we borrow from affective forecasting research in suggesting that forecasts about engaging in performance-relevant behaviors can be more or less accurate. Furthermore, we suggest that the degree of accuracy has implications for self-reported task performance. To examine these ideas, we conducted two studies in which individuals made affective predictions about engaging in tasks and then later reported how they actually felt during task engagement. We also assessed their self-reported task performance. In Study 1, 214 workers provided affective forecasts about upcoming work tasks, and in Study 2, 185 students made forecasts about studying for an exam. Results based on polynomial regression were largely consistent across the studies. The accuracy of the forecasts did not conform to the pattern of affective forecasting accuracy typically found outside the performance domain. Furthermore, anticipated and experienced affect jointly predicted self-reported task performance in a consistent manner. Collectively, these findings suggest that taking into account anticipated affect, and its relationship with later experienced affect, provides a more comprehensive account of affect's role in task performance.
multidisciplinary sciences