Affect intensity and softness tactile preferences: An experimental approach to arousal regulation

•High Affect Intensity people have a preference for soft textiles.•Such an attitude serves a need for positive stimulation in a poor arousal context.•Arousal context manipulation affects sensory tactile preferences. Previous findings have shown that people experiencing emotions more intensely presen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Food quality and preference 2016-09, Vol.52 (52), p.120-123
Hauptverfasser: Kergoat, M., Giboreau, A., Nicod, H., Faye, P., Diaz, E., Beetschen, M.A., Meyer, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•High Affect Intensity people have a preference for soft textiles.•Such an attitude serves a need for positive stimulation in a poor arousal context.•Arousal context manipulation affects sensory tactile preferences. Previous findings have shown that people experiencing emotions more intensely present favorable attitudes toward tactile softness. Based on Larsen’s (2009) hypothesis that a higher level of affect intensity is a way to compensate for a low level of baseline arousal, we suggest that such a positive attitude toward soft textiles serves a need for stimulation in a poor arousal context (e.g., Central Location Test; CLT). An experimental study was run using the IAPS (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2005) in order to manipulate the arousal context prior to a sensory evaluation of textiles. Significant results were observed on one component of the Affect Intensity Measure (Larsen & Diener, 1987). As expected, in the low arousal condition, participants characterized by higher levels of intensity in positive emotions showed a preference for softer textiles, whereas this effect was not observed in the high arousal condition. Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.
ISSN:0950-3293
1873-6343
DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.04.005