Abstract. In a quasi-representative survey, 1242 respondents were asked to describe a situation or event that had elicited an emotion on the previous day. They were also asked to report on the respective appraisal and reaction patterns as well as to verbally label the experience. In addition, they completed a rating list on the relative frequency of experiencing each of 14 emotions and a medical symptom list. The data are Editor's noteThe present issue of SSI publishes the results of a large-scale survey on the frequency of different emotions in everyday life, conducted by Klaus R. Scherer, Tanja Wranik, Janique Sangsue, Véronique Tran and Ursula Scherer from the Emotion Research Group in Geneva, Switzerland. It is hoped that the presentation of the data in this article, unusual from the standpoint of mainstream psychological research, may stimulate debate on currently neglected issues in emotion research. In order to encourage an interdisciplinary, phenomenon-oriented approach, rather than sticking to a narrow paradigm, and to confront a variety of approaches, we have invited leading scholars from various disciplines to comment on this article. interpreted in terms of the odds of experiencing a particular type of emotion in everyday life, mediated by ''risk factors'' such as culture, socio-demographic background, personality, health, and situational context. Further results concern typical appraisals and reactions for different emotions and relationships between everyday emotions and subjective well-being (life satisfaction and subjective health).Key words. Cultural differences -Dispositional emotionality -Emotional response organization -General population survey of emotion -Health and emotion -Risk factors for emotion elicitation Résumé. Dans une étude quasi-représentative, nous avons interrogé 1242 sujets sur le rappel en mémoire d'un événement ayant généré une émotion au cours de la journée précédente, en leur demandant de décrire verbalement l'expérience émotionnelle en question et les patterns de réaction correspondants. Ils ont également complété un questionnaire quant à la relative fréquence avec laquelle ils ressentent 14 différentes émotions, ainsi qu'une série de symptômes physiques. Les données ont été interprétées en termes de probabilités d'éprouver tel ou tel type d'émotions dans la vie courante, modulées par des facteurs de risque tels que le contexte socio-culturel, le profil socio-démographique, la personnalité, la santé, et l'endroit dans lequel les émotions ont été éprouvées. D'autres résultats portent sur l'attribution causale et les patterns de réactions typiques à différentes émotions, ainsi que sur les relations entre expériences émotionnelles et bien-être subjectif (satisfaction de vie et santé subjective).

No abstract

Investment behavior is traditionally investigated with the assumption that risky investment is on average advantageous. However, this may not always be the case. In this paper, we experimentally studied investment choices made by students and financial professionals under favorable and unfavorable market conditions in a multi-round investment game. In particular, the probability of winning was set so that investment in one condition was advantageous, and in one condition was disadvantageous.To investigate who is more likely to adapt their investment behaviors to the changing market conditions, we also measured personality and self-efficacy. We expected that investment behavior in changing markets could be predicted by a combination of experience (students, professionals), personality (anxiety, optimism, impulsivity, and Openness to Experience), and self-efficacy (belief in one's ability to make good decisions in an investment task).Results indicate that professionals do not significantly differ from students in their decisions.Personality and self-efficacy both predicted investment behavior. In particular, we found that optimism and anxiety were a liability in unfavorable markets, leading to unreasonable levels of risk. Impulsivity was a liability in both favorable and unfavorable markets, leading to high risk on unfavorable markets, and low risk in favorable markets. Openness to experience was an asset in unfavorable markets, leading to adjusted risk taking. Finally, self-efficacy was generally related to higher levels of risk.

No abstract

No abstract