This article deals with the functioning of affect and epistemic emotions, such as surprise and curiosity, in self-regulated learning (SRL). The claim is that affect plays a major role in SRL not only as an independent process that can facilitate or impede learning activities and performance but also through its interactions with cognition and metacognition. These interactions render metacognition a hot rather than a cold process. Critical cognitive states that have implications for affect and metacognition are processing fluency/disfluency, interruptions, discrepancies, or gaps in knowledge. Epistemic emotions focus on such cognitive states and are related to metacognitive experiences such as feeling of difficulty (in the case of surprise) and feeling of confidence (in the case of curiosity). Two studies exemplifying the relations between metacognitive experiences and epistemic emotions are presented. The implications of the findings for learning and SRL are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AartsK., De HouwerJ., & PourtoisG. (2013). Erroneous and correct actions have a different affective valence: Evidence from ERPs. Emotion, 13(5), 960–973. doi:10.1037/T0032808
2.
AikenL. R. (1996). Rating scales and checklists: Evaluating behavior, personality, and attitudes. London, England: Wiley.
3.
AlterA. L., OppenheimerD. M., & EpleyN. (2013). Disfluency prompts analytic thinking but not always greater accuracy: Response to Thompson et al. Cognition, 128(2), 252–255. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.01.006
4.
AutinF., & CroizetJ-C. (2012). Improving working memory efficiency by reframing metacognitive interpretation of task difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 610–618. doi:10.1037/a0027478
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180–191.
6.
BowerG. D. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.
7.
CarverC. S. (2015). Control processes, priority management, and affective dynamics. Emotion Review, 7(4), 301–307. doi:10.1177/1754073915590616
8.
CarverC. S., & ScheierM. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DermitzakiI., & EfklidesA. (2000). Aspects of self-concept and their relationship with language performance and verbal reasoning ability. American Journal of Psychology, 113, 643–659. doi:10.2307/1423475
10.
DinaF., & EfklidesA. (2009). Metacognitive experiences as the link between situational characteristics, motivation, and affect in self-regulated learning. In WosnitzaM., KarabenickS.A., EfklidesA., & NennigerP. (Eds.), Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives (pp. 117–146). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
11.
D'MelloS. (2013). A selective meta-analysis on the relative incidence of discrete affective states during learning with technology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1082–1099. doi:10.1937/a0032674
12.
EcclesJ. S., & WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
13.
EfklidesA. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277–287. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
14.
EfklidesA. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: The MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 6–25. doi:10.1080/00461520. 2011.538645
15.
EfklidesA. (2014). How does metacognition contribute to the regulation of learning? An integrative approach. Psychological Topics, 23(1), 1–30.
16.
EfklidesA. (2016). Metamemory and affect. In DunloskyJ., & TauberU. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 245–267). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
EfklidesA., & PetkakiC. (2005). Effects of mood on students’ metacognitive experiences. Learning and Instruction, 15, 415–431. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.010
18.
EfklidesA., SchwartzB. L., & BrownV. (in press). Motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: Does metacognition play a role? In SchunkD., & GreeneJ. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
EfklidesA., & VlachopoulosS. P. (2012). Measurement of metacognitive knowledge of self, task, and strategies in mathematics. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 227–239. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000145
21.
ElpidorouA. (2014, November). The bright side of boredom. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(Article 1245), 1–4. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01245
22.
FlavellJ. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003/0003-066X.34.10.906
23.
ForgasJ. P. (1994). The role of emotion in social judgments: An introductory review and an affect infusion model (AIM). European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 1–24. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240102
24.
FrijdaN. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
KoriatA., & NussinsonR. (2009). Attributing study effort to data-driven and goal-driven effects: Implications for metacognitive judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1338–1343. doi:10.1037/a0016374
26.
LitmanJ. A. (2008). Interest and deprivation factors of epistemic curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1585–1595. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.014
27.
LitmanJ. A. (2010). Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 397–402. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.005
28.
LitmanJ. A., CrowsonH. M., & KolinskiK. (2010). Validity of the interest- and deprivation-type epistemic curiosity distinction in non-students. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 531–536. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.021
29.
LitmanJ. A., HutchinsT. L., & RussonR. K. (2005). Epistemic curiosity, feeling of knowing, and exploratory behavior. Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 559–582. doi:10.1080/02699930441000427
30.
LitmanJ. A., & PezzoM. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1448–1459. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.021
31.
LitmanJ. A., & SpielbergerC. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–86.
32.
LoewensteinG. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75
33.
MandlerG. (1975). Mind and emotion. New York, NY: Wiley.
34.
MandlerG. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York, NY: Norton.
35.
MetallidouP., & EfklidesA. (2001). The effects of general success-related beliefs and specific metacognitive experiences on causal attributions. In EfklidesA., KuhlJ., & SorrentinoR.M. (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 325–347). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
36.
MeyerW., ReisenzeinR., & SchützwohlA. (1997). Toward a process analysis of emotions: The case of surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21(3), 251–274.
37.
MuisK. R., PsaradellisC., LajoieS. P., Di LeoI., & ChevrierM. (2015). The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 172–185. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.003
38.
MusselP. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 506–510. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
39.
NelsonT. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.51.2.102
40.
NussinsonR., & KoriatA. (2008). Correcting experience-based judgments: The perseverance of subjective experience in the face of the correction of judgment. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 159–174. doi:10.1007/s11409-008-9024-2
41.
PekrunR. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
42.
PekrunR., ElliotA. J., & MaierM. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135. doi:10.1037/a0013383
43.
SchunkD. H., & ZimmermanB. J. (Ed.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
SchwarzN. (2005). When thinking feels difficult: Meta-cognitive experiences in judgment and decision making. Medical Decision Making, 25(1), 105–112. doi:10.1177/0272989X04273144
45.
SchwarzN., & CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well- being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.45.3.513
46.
SideropoulouE. (2015). [Curiosity as trait and as intention for exploration: Task effects and interactions with metacognitive experiences and affect] (Unpublished MA thesis). School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
47.
ThagardP. (2006). Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48.
TonerE., HaslamN., RobinsonJ., & PaigeW. (2012). Character strengths and well-being in adolescence: Structure and correlates of the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths for Children. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 637–642. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.014
49.
TopolinskiS., & StrackF. (2015, February). Corrugator activity confirms immediate negative affect in surprise. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(Article 134), 1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00134
50.
TornareE., CzajkowskiN. O., & PonsF. (2015). Children's emotions in math problem-solving situations: Contributions of self-concept, metacognitive experiences, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 39, 88–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.011
51.
TouroutoglouA. (2009). H [Interruption of cognitive processing: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective effects] (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
52.
TouroutoglouA., & EfklidesA. (2010). Cognitive interruption as an object of metacognitive monitoring: Feeling of difficulty and surprise. In EfklidesA., & MisailidiP. (Eds.), Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 171–208). New York, NY: Springer.
53.
UsherE. L. (2009). Sources of middle school students’ self-efficacy in mathematics: A qualitative investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 275–314. doi:10.3102/0002831208324517
54.
WeinerB. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
55.
WeinerB. (2014). The attribution approach to emotion and motivation: History, hypotheses, home runs, headaches/heartaches. Emotion Review, 6(4), 353–361. doi:10.1177/1754073914534502
56.
WinkielmanP., & CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.6.989
57.
ZimmermanB. J., & SchunkD. (Ed.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Springer.
