After answering a test question, feedback of the correct answer provided after a brief delay can be more beneficial to learning than feedback provided immediately (Brackbill & Kappy, 1962; Kulhavy & Anderson, 1972). Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain this delay-of-feedback benefit, with the most well supported being that delaying feedback promotes anticipation of the correct answer, which has been examined using curiosity as a measure of answer anticipation (Mullaney et al. 2014). The present study tested this model across two task designs, one designed to elicit epistemic curiosity, and one designed to elicit perceptual curiosity, to determine if the relationship between curiosity and feedback delay is type-dependent. In Task 1, participants answered trivia questions, reported their subjective level of curiosity to know the answer, and then received correct answer feedback after a variable delay (0s, 4s, or 8s). Task 2 was identical to Task 1, except that participants learned and were tested on the identities of blurred pictures, rather than trivia question answers. A subsequent learning retention test demonstrated a significant effect of curiosity, but not feedback delay, on performance in the trivia task, and no significant effect of curiosity, but a negative effect of feedback delay, on performance in the blurred pictures task. Neither task found a significant interaction effect between curiosity and delay group, which fails to support the answer anticipation model of the delay-of-feedback benefit.

People use a variety of emotion regulation strategies to cope with difficult situations. Although there is research supporting humor as an effective emotion regulation strategy, less is known about what circumstances lead people to use humor and what negative emotions humor seems to be the most helpful in mitigating. The current study aimed to determine to what extent specific negative emotions lead people to choose humor as an emotion regulation strategy. Participants wrote about a neutral situation and then selected from four card decks with different stimuli (funny, pleasant, awe-inspiring, or neutral). Participants were then randomly assigned to a negative emotion condition (sadness, embarrassment, anxiety, or anger) and wrote about a situation in which they have experienced that specific emotion. They then completed the card selection task again. We compared the number of funny cards chosen between the neutral vs negative emotion trials for each emotion. We found that card selection did not change significantly from the neutral-affect trial to the negative emotion trial across any of the negative emotions. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

People generally struggle with making good decisions for their well-being (Hershfield, 2019; Hershfield & Bartels, 2018). One reason for this might be that people struggle with connecting to their future selves. Prior research suggests that future self-connectedness predicts better decisions. This study examined if feeling more positive or negative helps people connect more to their future self and if this, in turn, helps people make better decisions. Participants read a scenario in which they are presented with two decisions, one having a short-term benefit/long-term cost and the other having a short-term cost/long-term benefit. Either neutral affect framing, positive affect framing, or negative affect framing was emphasized in the scenario depending on the condition. Our study did not find that positive affect framing and negative affect framing enhanced future self-connectedness. Neither did we find that positive affect framing and negative affect framing influenced decision-making.