People regularly form expectations about their future, and whether those expectations are positive or negative can have important consequences. So, what determines the valence of people’s expectations? Research seeking to answer this question by using an individual-differences approach has established that trait biases in optimistic/pessimistic self-beliefs and, more recently, trait biases in behavioral tendencies to weight one’s past positive versus negative experiences more heavily each predict the valence of people’s typical expectations. However, these two biases do not correlate, suggesting limits on a purely individual-differences approach to predicting people’s expectations. We hypothesize that, because these two biases appear to operate via distinct processes (with self-beliefs operating top-down and valence weighting bias operating bottom-up), to predict a person’s expectations on a given occasion, it is also critical to consider situational factors influencing processing style. To test this hypothesis, we investigated how an integral part of future thinking that influences processing style—mental imagery—determines each bias’s influence. Two experiments measured valence weighting biases and optimistic/pessimistic self-beliefs, then manipulated whether participants formed expectations using their own first-person visual perspective (which facilitates bottom-up processes) or an external third-person visual perspective (which facilitates top-down processes). Expectations corresponded more with valence weighting biases from the first-person (vs. third-person) but more with self-beliefs from the third-person (vs. first-person). Two additional experiments manipulated valence weighting bias, demonstrating its causal role in shaping expectations (and behaviors) with first-person, but not third-person, imagery. These results suggest the two biases operate via distinct processes, holding implications for interventions to increase optimism.

People experience life satisfaction when pursuing activities that genuinely interest them.

No abstract

When photographing moments in their lives, people can use a first-person (capturing the scene as they saw it) or third-person (capturing the scene with themselves in it) perspective. Past research suggests third-person (vs. first-person) images better depict the meaning (vs. physical experience) of events. The current work suggests the use and impact of perspective in personal photography follow this representational function. Across six studies ( N = 2,113), we find that the goal to capture meaning (vs. physical experience) causes people to be more likely to use third-person (vs. first-person) photos, that people are reminded more of the meaning (vs. physical experience) when viewing their own actual third-person (vs. first-person) photos, and that people like their photos better when the perspective matched (vs. mismatched) their goal for taking the photo. Discussion focuses on theoretical and practical implications of extending the representational function of imagery perspective to everyday uses of photographic imagery.

Whereas most evaluative learning paradigms remove participants’ autonomy over the information they receive, other research traditions have demonstrated that information sampling has an important role in learning. We investigated the impact of information sampling on a central evaluative learning paradigm: evaluative conditioning. We compared a traditional evaluative conditioning paradigm with a paradigm in which participants have autonomy over the stimulus pairings they receive. Participants in the high-autonomy condition showed a strong preference for positively paired CSs. Nevertheless, the strength of evaluative conditioning effects was independent of autonomy. Moreover, high-autonomy participants, but not their low-autonomy counterparts, demonstrated a relationship between sampling frequency and evaluations, in line with the interpretation that sampled stimuli become more positive, whereas ignored stimuli become more negative over the course of the learning phase. The present research provides a cornerstone for integrating several research traditions within and beyond the evaluative learning literature, providing a foundation for new insights and more comprehensive theories of evaluative learning.