{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0384995064165844, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003948667324777887, 'mean_word_length': 5.671052631578948, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Preferences for separating or combining events.

This research investigates people's preferences for temporally separating or combining emotionally impactful events. For instance, do people prefer to experience 2 negative events (e.g., manuscript rejections) on the same day or on different days? Do people prefer to experience 2 positive events (e.g., manuscript acceptances) on the same or different days? This article proposes a renewable resources model that combines elements of decision-making models (prospect theory) with the notion that people possess limited but renewable physiological, cognitive, and social resources for dealing with emotionally impactful events. As predicted, Ss preferred to separate 2 positive events (the gain-savoring hypothesis), to separate 2 negative events (the multiple-loss-avoidance hypothesis), and to combine a positive and a negative event (the loss-buffering hypothesis). Ss displayed identical preferences for events from the academic, financial, and social domains.