Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/32260
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMarks, J-
dc.contributor.authorBaines, S-
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-31T16:24:35Z-
dc.date.available2017-05-01-
dc.date.available2025-10-31T16:24:35Z-
dc.date.issued2017-06-10-
dc.identifierORCiD: Stephanie Baines https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7293-9517-
dc.identifier.citationMarks, J. and Baines, S. (2017) 'Optimistic belief updating despite inclusion of positive events', Learning and Motivation, 58, pp. 88 - 101. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2017.05.001.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0023-9690-
dc.identifier.urihttps://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/32260-
dc.description.abstractA recent methodology – namely, the belief update task – used in the study of unrealistic optimism has provided a mechanistic account of how people maintain positive illusions about their future in the face of disconfirming evidence. This methodology has been used in a series of neuroscientific studies and neural moderators of unrealistic optimism have been established. A subsequent critique of the belief update task by Shah et al. (2016) has cast doubt over the validity of these findings however, with the authors instead suggesting that apparent optimistic belief updating is in fact a statistical artefact resulting from a flawed methodology. Specifically, Shah et al. assert that the inclusion of positive events in the belief update task can help test the validity of the optimistic account of belief updating, while proponents have suggested that caution should be taken when adapting this task to study positive life events because there is a lack of accurate information regarding the likely frequency of such events. Using a subset of the life events used by Shah et al., the current paper demonstrates that optimistic belief updating should still be observed when positive life events are included in the belief update task.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.en_US
dc.format.extent88 - 101-
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International-
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjectoptimism biasen_US
dc.subjectbelief updatingen_US
dc.subjectpositive eventsen_US
dc.subjectunrealistic optimismen_US
dc.subjectmotivated reasoningen_US
dc.subjectfuture projectionen_US
dc.titleOptimistic belief updating despite inclusion of positive eventsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2017.05.001-
dc.relation.isPartOfLearning and Motivation-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
pubs.volume58-
dc.identifier.eissn1095-9122-
dc.rights.licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.en-
dc.rights.holderElsevier Inc.-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing ).789.31 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons