Forecasting turbulence: Evidence of affective projection biases in momentary predictive fluctuations using dynamic
Aleks Karnick1, Ava Fergerson2, Morgan Buerke3
1Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America; Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, United States of America.
Background:
Belief formation and behavior are informed by predictions about future emotional outcomes (affective forecasting). Hopelessness is a potent suicide risk, but temporal relationships with subsequent negative affect (NA) may be biased toward systematic over- or under-estimation of future affect. We examined relationships between these using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and Dynamic Structural Equation Modelling (DSEM).
Methods:
Undergraduate psychology students (N = 175) completed baseline questionnaires and 10 days of EMA (five prompts/day) assessing hopelessness, five NA indicators (anger, stress, sadness, worry, anxiety), and momentary SI. We (1) modeled NA trajectories using linear mixed models (LMM); (2) validated the latent NA construct using two-level confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); (3) estimated DSEM parameters; and (4) explored associations between hopelessness and SI using generalized linear mixed models.
Results:
(1) Quadratic time trends best fit NA. (2) CFA fit was acceptable. (3) DSEM showed strong concurrent associations (βHtoN = 0.46, p < .001), modest NA (AR[1]NA = 0.25, p < .001) and hopelessness (AR[1]HPL = 0.09, p = .007) inertia (autoregressive carry-over, AR[1], of a process over adjacent occurrences), small NA to future hopelessness cross-lag (Lag[1]NtoH = 0.08, p = .016), but no significant hopelessness to NA cross-lag (p = .379). (4) Trait hopelessness predicted baseline suicide risk (β = 0.997, p < .001). State hopelessness predicted momentary SI (β = 0.231, p = .001).
Discussion:
Concurrent but not lagged effects are consistent with projection bias. Robust associations between trait and state hopelessness and SI suggest clinical relevance.
Limitations:
Single hopelessness item, nonclinical sample, small sample of EMA-endorsed SI.
Conclusion:
Momentary hopelessness reflects concurrent and prior NA but poorly predicts future NA. Findings highlight intervention targets focused on affective reactivity and variability.
More Related Videos
08:36Dynamic Inter-subject Functional Connectivity Reveals Moment-to-Moment Brain Network Configurations Driven by Continuous or Communication Paradigms
Published on: March 21, 2019
06:04Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Hyperscanning Study in Psychological Counseling
Published on: January 17, 2025
Related Concept Videos
The Influence of Cognition on Affect
First Impression
Actor-Observer Effect
Theory of Attribution I: Correspondent Inference Theory
Role of Affect in Interpersonal Attraction
Noncompartmental Analysis: Statistical Moment Theory
