"Worse than I anticipated" or "This isn't so bad"?: The impact of affective forecasting accuracy on self-reported task performance.

Various motivational theories emphasize that desired emotional outcomes guide behavioral choices. Although motivational theory and research has emphasized that behavior is affected by desired emotional outcomes, little research has focused on the impact of anticipated feelings about engaging in behavior. The current research seeks to partly fill that void. Specifically, we borrow from affective forecasting research in suggesting that forecasts about engaging in performance-relevant behaviors can be more or less accurate. Furthermore, we suggest that the degree of accuracy has implications for self-reported task performance. To examine these ideas, we conducted two studies in which individuals made affective predictions about engaging in tasks and then later reported how they actually felt during task engagement. We also assessed their self-reported task performance. In Study 1, 214 workers provided affective forecasts about upcoming work tasks, and in Study 2, 185 students made forecasts about studying for an exam. Results based on polynomial regression were largely consistent across the studies. The accuracy of the forecasts did not conform to the pattern of affective forecasting accuracy typically found outside the performance domain. Furthermore, anticipated and experienced affect jointly predicted self-reported task performance in a consistent manner. Collectively, these findings suggest that taking into account anticipated affect, and its relationship with later experienced affect, provides a more comprehensive account of affect's role in task performance.

Just how miserable is work? A meta-analysis comparing work and non-work affect.

Although we spend much of our waking hours working, the emotional experience of work, versus non-work, remains unclear. While the large literature on work stress suggests that work generally is aversive, some seminal theory and findings portray working as salubrious and perhaps as an escape from home life. Here, we examine the subjective experience of work (versus non-work) by conducting a quantitative review of 59 primary studies that assessed affect on working days. Meta-analyses of within-day studies indicated that there was no difference in positive affect (PA) between work versus non-work domains. Negative affect (NA) was higher for work than non-work, although the magnitude of difference was small (i.e., .22 SD, an effect size comparable to that of the difference in NA between different leisure activities like watching TV versus playing board games). Moderator analyses revealed that PA was relatively higher at work and NA relatively lower when affect was measured using "real-time" measurement (e.g., Experience Sampling Methodology) versus measured using the Day Reconstruction Method (i.e., real-time reports reveal a more favorable view of work as compared to recall/DRM reports). Additional findings from moderator analyses included significant differences in main effect sizes as a function of the specific affect, and, for PA, as a function of the age of the sample and the time of day when the non-work measurements were taken. Results for the other possible moderators including job complexity and affect intensity were not statistically significant.