Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Language
- English (6)
Keywords
- General Psychology (1)
- achievement emotion (1)
- cognitive incongruity (1)
- epistemic emotion (1)
- knowledge exploration (1)
- replication (1)
- within-person analysis (1)
Institute
Research has started to acknowledge the importance of emotions for complex learning and cognitive performance. However, research on epistemic emotions has only recently become more prominent. Research in educational psychology in particular has mostly focused on examining achievement emotions instead of epistemic emotions. Furthermore, only few studies have addressed functional mechanisms underlying multiple different epistemic emotions simultaneously, and only one study has systematically compared the origins and effects of epistemic emotions with other emotions relevant to knowledge generation (i.e., achievement emotions; Vogl et al., 2019). The present article aimed to replicate the findings from Vogl et al. (2019) exploring within-person interrelations, origins, and outcomes of the epistemic emotions surprise, curiosity, and confusion, and the achievement emotions pride and shame, as well as to analyze their robustness and generalizability across two different study settings (online; Study 1, n = 169 vs. lab; Study 2, n = 79). In addition, the previous findings by Vogl et al. (2019, Study 3) and the present two new studies were meta-analytically integrated to consolidate evidence on origins and outcomes of epistemic emotions. The results of the two new studies largely replicated the findings by Vogl et al. (2019). Combined with the meta-analytic results, the findings confirm distinct patterns of antecedents for epistemic vs. achievement emotions: Pride and shame were more strongly associated with the correctness of a person’s answer (i.e., accuracy), whereas surprise, curiosity, and confusion were more strongly related to incorrect responses a person was confident in (i.e., high-confidence errors) producing cognitive incongruity. Furthermore, in contrast to achievement emotions, epistemic emotions had positive effects on the exploration of knowledge. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Children’s metacognitive monitoring is typically considered as a domain general skill that can be applied in different tasks and situations. However, this assumption lacks empirical evidence as few studies tested whether children’s accuracy of monitoring judgments as well as their monitoring behaviours are consistent across tasks. It is also not clear if children who provide more accurate monitoring judgments also show more frequent monitoring behaviours. In the current research study 53 elementary school children’s metacognitive monitoring was assessed with four tasks: on the one hand, the accuracy of children’s monitoring judgments was assessed with two computer-based tasks (one task required monitoring of memory and the other task required monitoring of reaction times); on the other hand, the frequency with which they engaged in monitoring behaviours was assessed with two construction tasks. Correlational analysis showed that there was no significant association between children’s monitoring judgment accuracies. In turn, children’s monitoring behaviour on two construction tasks was significantly positively associated. Intercorrelations between children’s monitoring judgment accuracies and monitoring behaviours showed that children who more accurately monitored their reaction time showed significantly more monitoring behaviour when working on construction tasks. Conversely, children’s monitoring judgment accuracy on a memory task was not significantly associated with their monitoring behaviour. These findings suggest that the processes underlying children’s monitoring judgments may be task specific, whereas their tendency to engage in monitoring behaviours may be domain general. Implications for promoting metacognitive monitoring are discussed.
