Affect is a fundamental aspect of the human mind. An increasing number of experiments attempt to examine the influence of affect on other psychological phenomena. To accomplish this research, it is necessary to experimentally modify participants' affective states. In the present experiment, we compared the efficacy of four commonly used affect induction procedures. Participants (38 healthy undergraduate students: 18 males) were randomly assigned to either a pleasant or an unpleasant affect induction group, and then underwent four different affect induction procedures: (1) recall of an affectively salient event accompanied by affectively congruent music, (2) script-driven guided imagery, (3) viewing images while listening to affectively congruent music, and (4) posing affective facial actions, body postures, and vocal expressions. All four affect induction methods were successful in inducing both pleasant and unpleasant affective states. The viewing image with music and recall with music procedures were most effective in enhancing positive affect, whereas the viewing image with music procedure was most effective in enhancing negative affect. Implications for the scientific study of affect are discussed.

Abstract. Heartbeat perception tasks are used to measure interoceptive accuracy. This paper explores the effect of reducing external auditory stimuli on heartbeat perception. Three samples (121 participants in total) performed a heartbeat perception task. Samples 1 and 2 wore ear-protectors and sample 3 did not. There were no differences in interoceptive accuracy between samples 1 and 2 but samples 1 and 2 showed significantly higher interoceptive accuracy than sample 3. These results suggest ear-protectors could be used to manipulate heartbeat perception and that the auditory component of heartbeat perception might be given greater consideration.

No abstract

Abstract-

An emerging stream of research documents that climate migrants are more acceptable than economic migrants to citizens in high-income countries. However, extant research has not considered migrant race, and how race, along with socioeconomic status, interact with reasons for migrating to impact the perceptions of acceptability among residents in the receiving society. We investigated the joint effects of reason for migration (economic vs. climate), race (Black vs. White), and socioeconomic status (low vs. high) on migrant acceptability judgments among a national sample of Norwegian residents (N = 1637) using a preregistered survey experiment. The results indicate that climate migrants are more acceptable to participants than economic migrants, and White migrants are preferred to Black migrants. There was also an interaction between reason for migrating, race, and social status whereby Black, low social status, and economic migrants were less accepted than any other migrant profile. Especially notable was the finding that Black climate migrants of low socioeconomic status were seen by participants as being much more acceptable than Black economic migrants of low socioeconomic status. The notion that climate and economic migrants can be meaningfully differentiated in the real world is debatable. Nonetheless, our study suggests that framing migrants’ motivation in terms of environmental influences, compared with economic motivations, has potentially major effects on migrant acceptance in receiving societies.