Emotions and individual processing (E1)

Pekrun and Linnenbrink-Garcia (2012) have proposed to distinguish different types of emotions occurring in different spheres of academic activity. They are referred to as academic emotions (Pekrun, 2006). At the cognitive level, two main types of academic emotions can be distinguished. The first type is called epistemic emotions.

They “have as an object focus the knowledge-generating aspects of learning that arise as a result of cognitive and epistemic qualities of information and the process-ing of that information” (Chevrier et al., 2019, pp. 2-3). On the one hand, problem-solving can trigger cognitive disequilibrium or impasses in individuals that may trigger emotions such as confusion or frustration. On the other hand, when cogni-tive processing appears straightforward, group members can experience a feeling of flow. Furthermore, surprise can also emerge when group members experience cognitive novelty (D’Mello & Graesser, 2012). Second, topic emotions (Pekrun et al., 2002) can also arise in response to the contents of the problem-solving task (e.g., sadness about violence at school when designing a slogan about this topic).

At the motivational level, emotions can emerge from the monitoring of the differ-ent compondiffer-ents of motivation as well as the psychological and effort costs associ-ated with the task (Miele & Scholer, 2018). They signal the presence or resolution

1Avry, S. (2020). A three-level model of collaborative problem-solving. Manuscript submitted for publica-tion in Educapublica-tional Psychologist.

FIGURE3.8: Emotional processes in the three-level model of collaborative problem-solving

of motivational concerns. Some feelings are associated with reduced motivation.

They are generally deactivating and signal a desire to disengage from the activity (e.g., low intrinsic value is associated with boredom). Some others are associated with a motivational increase (e.g., feeling of interest or enjoyment). Finally, in goal-directed activities, a kind of emotion is at the convergence of cognitive and motiva-tional dimensions. They relate to how group members perceive their own and group achievement. Achievement emotions involve both cognitive and motivational ap-praisals of the situation. Pekrun (2006) proposes that achievement emotions emerge from the perceived value of actions and accomplished outcomes and perceived con-trol regarding actions and outcomes. Perceived value is strongly related to cognitive (e.g., success vs. failure) and motivational components (e.g., intrinsic vs. extrinsic value, attributions about success and failure). Perceived control also involves ap-praisals regarding both cognitive aspects (e.g., action-outcome or situation-outcome expectancies) and motivational aspects (e.g., action-control expectancies). Various emotions can emerge according to how individuals appraise task achievement (see Pekrun, 2006, for a complete description of achievement emotions).

In general, positive and activating emotions (e.g., enjoyment) are assumed to have beneficial effects on individual cognitive processing, while negative and deactivat-ing emotions (e.g., boredom) would globally have disruptive effects (Gläser-Zikuda,

2012; Pekrun et al., 2002). Some positive or negative emotions can also influence cog-nitive styles (e.g., flexible and creative thinking vs. systematic and careful thinking) (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). However, even though negative effects of negative emotions are often reported (due to adverse effects on attention, memory, motiva-tion, self-regulamotiva-tion, and self-efficacy) (Rowe & Fitness, 2018), a strong dichotomy between beneficial effects of positive emotions and detrimental effects of negative emotions should be avoided. As outlined by Pekrun and Perry (2014, p. 134), “with few exceptions, any emotion can prove to be either adaptative or maladaptive in terms of achievement outcomes”. Therefore, understanding the role of emotions in problem-solving requires adopting a more fine-grained level of analysis, considering the functional aspect of different types of emotions in various kinds of settings. For example, negative emotional states would have an advantage for tasks requiring to perform effectively within provided rules (i.e., convergent thinking) (Hascher, 2010;

Rowe & Fitness, 2018). Several reasons can be advanced to substantiate this point.

First, depending on the type of task, some negative emotions could enhance learn-ing performance, whereas some positive emotions could dampen it. For example, fear would lead to a better prioritizing of information, while anger would increase attention to the goals and actions of others (Rowe & Fitness, 2018). Conversely, some positive emotions (e.g., amusement) increase the urge to be playful and social and, therefore, can promote distraction, which would disrupt the processing of tasks re-quiring high focus, especially when the learning topic has low subjective relevance or low challenge (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Hascher, 2010). Second, emotions do not solely impact cognitive performance but also motivational processes. There-fore, the same emotion could have a detrimental impact on cognitive processes while positively impacting motivational processes and vice versa. For example, anxiety would globally reduce cognitive resources and trigger more task-irrelevant think-ing due to worries about failure (Pekrun, 2012). However, it would also promote motivation to avoid failure (Rowe & Fitness, 2018). Third, an essential component of efficient learning and problem-solving is cognitive conflict, i.e., a psychological state involving a discrepancy between new information and prior beliefs and ideas (Braasch & Scharrer, 2020; Waxer & Morton, 2012). For example, cognitive disequi-librium can generate confusion that could benefit learning (D’Mello et al., 2014) in promoting, for example, knowledge exploration (Vogl et al., 2019). In general, the literature suggests that emotions must be maintained to an optimal level according to the situation to bolster their positive effects and prevent their harmful ones. This emotional tuning requires the regulation of emotions.

The way individuals manage their own emotions strongly depends on their capacity to use appropriate real-time self-regulation strategies when needed. For this reason, emotional competencies play a crucial role in individual problem-solving. They first consist of identifying and discriminating emotions clearly, then understanding the causes and possible consequences of emotions, harness them according to the sit-uation, and regulate them when needed (Fernández-Berrocal & Extremera, 2006).

Indeed, individual problem-solving often trigger pleasant and unpleasant emotions which have to be managed to foster task achievement. Group members generally tend to regulate their emotions in a hedonic way, i.e., they try to decrease nega-tive emotions (e.g., frustration due to persistent cogninega-tive difficulties) and increase or maintain positive emotions (e.g., happiness due to success) (Koole, 2009). To this end, they mobilize different implicit or explicit strategies. The Process Model (Gross, 1998) of emotion regulation have distinguished five different types of emotion (sit-uation selection, sit(sit-uation modification, attentional deployment, cognitive change and response modulation) regulation strategies referring to five ways to regulate their emotions (see Gross, 1998 for a complete description of the emotion regulation strategies). However, we argue that a hedonic regulation is not always suited to problem-solving and can even go against personal performance. As highlighted in research on individual learning (e.g., D’Mello and Graesser, 2012, unpleasant emo-tions are part of the normal process of complex cognition and should not be avoided.

Indeed, a too strong tendency to inhibit some negative emotions or enhance some positive emotions can prevent problem solvers from reaching task goals. For ex-ample, systematically alleviating frustration due to cognitive difficulties can lead to implementing surface cognitive strategies that may impair problem-solving. Thus, another crucial aspect is to choose appropriate strategies in response to emotions and sometimes consider strategies that do not have an immediate hedonic effect. For example, enduring unpleasant feelings and using cognitive change techniques to ap-praise and implement meta-motivational strategies (e.g., persistence enhancement) could be more beneficial to performance than response modulation techniques ded-icated to directly suppressing unpleasant feelings. Furthermore, the regulation of emotions is not only concerned with dealing with unpleasant emotions. Sometimes, even positive emotions must be regulated when they appear inappropriate to the problem-solving task. For example, a too strong feeling of pride, although pleas-ant, can trigger extraneous thoughts about earlier success and consumes attentional resources. Thus, implementing strategies in response to emotions is not an easy pro-cess and can fail for different reasons such as a faulty interpretation of emotions, a tendency to automatically use hedonic strategies, a lack of knowledge about effec-tive strategies, or a lack of sufficient superordinate motivation to endure unpleasant emotions or abate pleasant emotions when needed (Koole, 2009).