The role of appraisals on emotions in academic performance context

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between emotions and appraisals in a personalized experiment in academic performance context. For this, a paradigm was created. 50 university students were shown hypothetical academic outcomes based on the expected results of their current graded courses. The stimuli represented expected, better-than-expected, and worse-than-expected outcomes. The results showed that better-than-expected outcomes elicited significantly stronger positive affect and greater zygomaticus major activity, whereas worse-than-expected outcomes elicited significantly stronger negative affect and greater corrugator supercilii activity. Significant differences were also found across all appraisal dimensions. Better-than-expected results were appraised as more relevant, congruent, fair, and with higher emotional coping, whereas worse-than-expected results were appraised as more relevant and urgent, and less congruent, fair, controllable, and with less emotional coping as opposed to expected results. Furthermore, several appraisal dimensions such as relevance, congruence, fairness, control, urgency, and emotional coping moderated the relationship between the condition of hypothetical result and emotional responses. The findings suggest that personalized academic expectancy violations can successfully evoke differentiated emotional and appraisal-related responses under laboratory conditions and may provide a useful framework for future research on emotions and appraisals in achievement contexts.