/interception
yawn.bot/interception
EvidenceCatalogProtocolSources

YAWN Research · Working Paper 001 · Version 1.0

Interception

Awareness between emotion and action

Interception is the moment an activated pattern becomes observable before it becomes behavior.

Author
David Forman
Role
principal of @dave
Published
29 August 2026
Status
Public working paper · not peer reviewed
01Programming02Emotion03Interception04Yawn05Choice06Update

A call-out from David Forman

Interception does not stop emotion. It loosens the learned coupling between emotion and the next action. Emotion may supply the signal; awareness makes the interception.

David Forman — principal of @dave

An emotional signal reaches an opening and branches into several possible actions.
First candidate · OpenAI built-in image generation registered to yawn.bot/image-generator · output 54bd1d3bd256…
00

Abstract

A reaction is a trajectory, not a verdict.

This paper proposes Interception as a measurable event: an agent detects an emerging, emotion-linked action tendency, represents it as an object of attention, and changes the probability of what happens next.

The evidence supports a narrower thesis than the metaphor first suggests. Affect labeling, decentering, self-distancing, reappraisal, and well-timed pauses can alter components of an emotional or behavioral response. They do not reliably erase emotion, guarantee wise action, or prove that emotion uniquely frees humans from learned programming.

01

Definition

What must happen for an Interception to count?

detection+representation+altered action probability

Feeling calmer is not sufficient proof. The operational question is whether awareness changed the next selectable move.

Momentary Interception

  1. Detect an activated emotional state and its action tendency.
  2. Represent the state as a revisable object of attention.
  3. Reopen at least one behavior option before commitment.

Completed YAWN cycle

  1. Choose one bounded move.
  2. Observe a consequence that can count as proof.
  3. Update confidence and the future response policy without rewriting history.
Interception ≠ interoception

Interoception is the sensing and interpretation of internal bodily signals. Interception is a proposed YAWN term for redirecting an unfolding response. Bodily sensing may contribute, but the constructs are not interchangeable.

Interoception roadmap ↗
02

Mechanism

Agent ↔ Arena

The possibility window

A response begins inside a relationship between an agent and a situation. Observation is not outside that system; it is the system gaining an inspectable model of its present trajectory.

Relationship is structurally first; observation is operationally first.

  1. 01
    Relationship event

    Something changes in the agent–arena relationship.

  2. 02
    Affective update

    Body state, appraisal, prediction, attention, and action readiness reorganize.

  3. 03
    Meta-awareness

    The active state becomes distinguishable from the world it is modeling.

  4. 04
    Bounded move

    A label, delay, question, reappraisal, exit, request, or deliberate action can compete.

  5. 05
    Proof and update

    Consequences update the relationship, confidence, and future response policy.

03

Calibration

Claim register · predict before you read

How much of the idea survives contact with evidence?

Before you read the evidence: how well does each claim hold up? The register grades you.

People can sometimes label, distance from, decenter from, or reappraise an emotional response in ways that change physiology, experience, or behavior.

Meta-awareness plus a response gate can sometimes loosen the coupling between an activated state and its next action.

The complete YAWN Interception protocol improves goal-consistent behavior beyond a time-matched neutral pause.

Intense emotion generally makes people more flexible; it often narrows attention and strengthens a prepotent response.

Emotion uniquely wakes humans from programming; nonhuman animals also show flexible and metacognitive-like behavior.

These are qualitative synthesis judgments. They are not frequencies, effect sizes, or calibrated empirical probabilities.

04

Evidence

Eight inspectable studies, two levels of relevance.

Evidence boundary

No included study tests Interception as operationally defined. These studies test component mechanisms and design analogues.

Core

Component-mechanism evidence

Pauses, labeling, distancing, decentering, and a useful null.

01

104 participants + 58-participant replication · 6,262 trials

A five-second break in conflict

Reported result

Forced breaks of 5, 10, or 15 seconds reduced retaliatory sound-blast intensity on high-negative-affect trials. With immediate responding, negative expression predicted aggression (r = .33); during a break, the association was approximately zero (r = .01).

Interception relevance · inference

A brief gate can weaken the immediate coupling between negative affect and retaliation.

Limit: This is a laboratory aggression task, not durable habit change, and it must not be generalized to abuse or coercive control.

Open-access paperMcCurry, May & Donaldson (2024)↗Open dataData and R analysis↗CodeFTF-CRTT experiment↗
02

88 spider-fearful adults · randomized experiment

Affect labeling during exposure

Reported result

One week after exposure, the affect-labeling group showed a larger decrease in skin-conductance response than reappraisal, distraction, or exposure alone (pairwise d = 0.64–0.85). Self-reported fear did not differ between groups.

Interception relevance · inference

Naming an emotion can alter physiological responding and may influence approach in some contexts.

Limit: The approach advantage was only marginal versus distraction, and the result does not show that labeling makes fear disappear.

Free full textKircanski, Lieberman & Craske (2012)↗
03

63 + 79 adults · two experiments

When labeling reverses direction

Reported result

Labeling reduced distress for high-intensity negative images, but in the second experiment increased distress for low-intensity images (strategy × intensity partial η² = .23). Immediate versus delayed labeling did not reliably change the effect.

Interception relevance · inference

Affect labeling is context-sensitive rather than a universal off switch; intensity belongs inside the model.

Limit: Image-viewing distress is not equivalent to consequential real-world behavior.

Open-access paperLevy-Gigi & Shamay-Tsoory (2022)↗Open dataData and materials↗
04

177 online + 144 laboratory participants · preregistered replication

Self-distancing during anger

Reported result

Under immersed reflection, recalled anger impaired learning to avoid disadvantageous choices relative to fear. The anger-specific disadvantage was attenuated under self-distancing in both experiments.

Interception relevance · inference

Perspective can change how an emotional state couples to later decisions.

Limit: The induced emotions were mild and the gambling task is only a proxy for consequential real-world choice.

Open-access paperMayiwar, Hærem & Løhre (2024)↗Open dataData, code, and materials↗
05

345 adults · up to 42 phone surveys across one week

Decentering in daily life

Reported result

Momentary decentering and affect were mutually reinforcing over time. Greater decentering was associated with less persistence of negative affect and dysphoria, while several prospective results were mixed.

Interception relevance · inference

An observer stance tracks greater emotional mobility in ordinary life.

Limit: The design is observational and cannot establish that awareness caused the change.

Free full textNaragon-Gainey et al. (2023)↗Public projectStudy project↗
06

50 participants for behavior/craving · 49 for EEG · randomized experiment

A useful urge-surfing null

Reported result

After cigarette-cue exposure, a 15-minute mindfulness exercise did not improve Go/NoGo accuracy or reaction time versus usual coping. The craving difference was trend-level, not significant; a neural difference appeared without demonstrated behavioral benefit.

Interception relevance · inference

A brain measure is not enough; action and consequence must remain the proof target.

Limit: The brief intervention, student-smoker sample, and single session constrain generalization.

Open-access paperAndreu et al. (2018)↗Open dataRaw EEG data↗
Methods

Mechanism and engineering analogues

Useful for measurement and design; not direct emotion-action proof.

07

Published analysis N = 30 · OpenNeuro contains 34 participant records

Reappraisal as a distributed mechanism

Reported result

During reappraisal, right ventrolateral prefrontal activity related to reported emotion change through separable amygdala and nucleus-accumbens pathways; the modeled pathways jointly explained roughly half the variance in self-reported affect change.

Interception relevance · inference

The result is consistent with distributed appraisal and valuation pathways rather than a single rational switch.

Limit: This is a neural mediation analogue, not behavioral proof of Interception.

Free full textWager et al. (2008)↗Open dataOpenNeuro ds000108↗
08

37 analyzed adults · 6,061 available randomized points from 8,274 recorded decision-point rows

Intervening at a decision point

Reported result

HeartSteps walking suggestions increased near-term activity by about 24% (about 59 steps; p = .02) on average, while the effect declined across the six-week study.

Interception relevance · inference

Micro-randomization is an engineering precedent for testing whether a prompt changes the next behavior at the moment it is delivered.

Limit: HeartSteps is not emotion evidence, and its public repository contains data rather than the article's analysis code.

Free full textKlasnja et al. (2019)↗Open dataHeartSteps V1 data↗
05

Catalog

Labels are handles, not hidden essences.

58,009English Reddit comments

GoEmotions contains 58,009 English Reddit comments annotated with one or more of 27 emotion labels or neutral. On its 54,263-comment agreement-filtered split, the published BERT baseline reached macro-F1 .46 across all 28 labels.

admirationamusementangerannoyanceapprovalcaringconfusioncuriositydesiredisappointmentdisapprovaldisgustembarrassmentexcitementfeargratitudegriefjoylovenervousnessoptimismpriderealizationreliefremorsesadnesssurpriseneutral

This is an inspectable vocabulary for expressed language, not an ontology of private feelings. Its English-Reddit domain and annotation process introduce cultural, platform, and agreement bias.

Open dataAgreement-filtered and raw data↗CodeDataset preparation and baselines↗Open-access paperDemszky et al. (2020)↗Interactive mapInteractive embedding↗

Worked emotional-catalog record

Before sending the message

01 · Signal

Face heat, tight chest, rapid speech; unpleasant, high activation, intensity 8 of 10.

02 · Label hypotheses

Ranked possibilities: anger, then hurt, then fear. The labels are provisional and can overlap.

03 · Fact / story

Observed: “message unanswered for two days.” Interpretation: “I am being dismissed.”

04 · Urge / orientation

Urge: accuse and send now. Relationship goal: obtain clarity while preserving respect.

05 · Move

Save the draft, pause, and ask one factual question before sending.

06 · Proof

Did the message, tone, or outcome change? What should update the next response?

The goal is not to suppress anger. It is to preserve the information in anger without granting its first action tendency unilateral authority.

06

Protocol

Turn the metaphor into a micro-randomized study.

A four-arm micro-randomized study can test the full protocol against recording and time alone.

A

Record only

Emotion, urge, and intended action.

B

Neutral pause

A time-matched delay without emotion framing.

C

Label + gate

Body signal, emotion hypothesis, urge, and pause.

D

Full Interception

Label, relationship goal, two alternatives, bounded move, and proof.

  • Primary: whether the initially intended action occurred within 15 minutes.
  • Secondary: later-rated alignment with the person's stated relationship goal.
  • Learning: which states, intensities, contexts, and prompts predict a useful opening.
What would weaken the theory?

The theory weakens if the full protocol does not outperform a time-matched neutral pause, if benefits appear only in self-report, if neutral cues benefit equally, or if prompts increase rumination, distress, or impulsive action.

07

Boundaries

Agency needs more than awareness.

01Emotion is not noise to conquer. It changes attention, prediction, learning, and action readiness—sometimes usefully, sometimes dangerously.

02Awareness is not automatically agency. Viable alternatives, capacity, permission, and an environment that permits action also matter.

03One intercepted moment does not rewrite a habit. Durable change requires repetition, consequence, and consolidation.

04Failure to intercept under threat, trauma, exhaustion, intoxication, or coercion is not a moral failure. Control capacity is state- and context-dependent.

05Emotion labels are provisional models shaped by culture, context, language, and learning.

06This conceptual paper is not medical advice, therapy, diagnosis, or crisis care. Acute risk calls for safety, support, and qualified help—not an interface prompt.

08

Sources

Primary sources, open where possible.

Study-specific paper, data, code, and project links appear on each evidence card. These sources frame the broader mechanism and its boundaries.

  1. 01Bernstein, A. et al. (2015). Decentering and related constructs: A critical review and metacognitive processes model. ↗
  2. 02Lieberman, M. D. et al. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. ↗
  3. 03Khalsa, S. S. et al. (2018). Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. ↗
  4. 04Barrett, L. F. (2017). The theory of constructed emotion: An active inference account of interoception and categorization. ↗
  5. 05Wessel, J. R. et al. (2016). Surprise disrupts cognition via a fronto-basal ganglia suppressive mechanism. ↗
  6. 06Rosati, A. G., & Santos, L. R. (2016). Spontaneous metacognition in rhesus monkeys. ↗

Forman, D. (2026). Interception: Awareness between emotion and action. YAWN Research, Working Paper 001, version 1.0.

Time-jump: awareness, experienced time, and the next moveYawn IS Board: describe what is here and what could changeDownload model.yawnOpen .yawn protocol ↗
CC BY 4.0 — copy and adapt with attributionSource record · references/interception.yawn