Determinants of Emotional Experiences in Traffic Situations ... - OPUS

The Emotional Spectrum in Traffic Situations 43
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
LD% HD% LD% HD% LD% HD% LD% HD% LD% HD% LD% HD% LD% HD% LD% HD%
C% O% C% O% C% O% C% O%
Arrival% Safety% Arrival% Safety%
Goals blocked%
Goals promoted%
C = Circumstance-blame; O = Other-blame; LD = Low (task) demand; HD = High (task) demand; y-axis: Intensity of
anxiety
Figure 3: Situational properties and anxiety intensities in study 1
2.2.3.2.3 Testing H3
In goal promoting situations positive emotions are more intensive than in goal blocking situations.
This hypothesis was tested with three positive emotions: relief (Figure 4), hope (Figure 5) and
satisfaction (Figure 6). Relief occurred when traffic situations resolved in a goal congruent manner
!
(M = 1.43, SD = 1.42 vs. M = 0.67, SD = 0.83; F (1, 99) = 93.38; p < .001; η ! = .51). A three-way
interaction F (1, 99) = 36.94; p < .001; = .30) between goal congruency, relevance and blame was
caused by the fact that even a goal incongruent situation could trigger relief on par with congruent
ones (M = 1.16, SD = 1.44 vs. M = 0.97, SD = 1.12). But this requires a safety context and is slightly
stronger when circumstances are to blame (malfunctioning traffic lights at a junction).
Hope occurred in arrival-related situations regardless of blame or goal congruency
!
(F (1, 99) = 54.74; p < .001; η ! = .36). The overall mean of M = 0.50 (SD = 0.96) was significantly
higher compared to the grand mean of M = 0.14 (SD = 0.49) in safety related situations. Another main
effect could be observed on the blame level: circumstance-blame elicited slightly stronger feelings of
hope (M = 0.45, SD = 0.91) than other-blame situations (M = 0.19, SD = 0.54); F (1, 99) = 38.85;
!
p < .001; η ! = .30).
The third positive emotion in the experiment, satisfaction, was most strongly linked to goal
promoting situations (F (1, 99) = 130.14; p < .001; η ! ! = .57). A deeper analysis revealed a three-way
interaction between goal congruence, blame and goal relevance. This effect (F (1, 99) = 70.03;
p < .001; η ! ! = .41) occurred on levels of promoted goals due to higher means of satisfaction in otherblame
/ arrival situations (a car in front of the participant at a junction) (M = 1.75, SD = 1.35)
compared to safety contexts in general (M = 0.21, SD = 0.68).
!