The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking
Open accessAbstract
Two studies examined the influence of transient affective states and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking within the context of strategic decision making. In Study 1, participants in whom transient positive or negative affective states were induced by reading a short story showed systematic differences in issue interpretation and risk taking in a strategic decision making context. Compared to negative mood participants, those in a positive mood were more likely to interpret the strategic issue as an opportunity and displayed lower levels of risk taking. Study 2 replicated and extended these results by crossing affective states with threat and opportunity frames. Results showed that framing an issue (as a threat or an opportunity) had a stronger impact on issue interpretation among negative affect participants than among positive affect participants. Affective states also moderated the impact of issue framing on risk taking: the effect of framing on risk-taking was stronger under negative rather than positive affect. These results are interpreted via information-processing and motivational effects of affect on a decision maker. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cognitive shortcutting is a common occurrence that simplifies cognitive processing demands.
“The purpose of discussing information processing is to comprehend how incoming information and cognitive shortcutting are common occurrences that simplify cognitive processing demands [9,10,32,44,48,64,73].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
Prospect theory demonstrates that a decision maker's perceived utility can be subjectively influenced by the manner in which the information is framed (as a loss/gain or risk/no risk), what reference is being used to evaluate the options, and the relationship/salience of the alternative to the decision maker.
“Prospect theory, however, demonstrates that a decision maker's perceived utility can be subjectively influenced by the manner in which the information is framed (as a loss/gain or risk/no risk), what reference is being used to evaluate the options, and the relationship/salience of the alternative to the decision maker [47,70-74].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
Heuristics are cognitive processes where full information processing requirements are bypassed and mental shortcutting occurs.
“Heuristics are cognitive processes where full information processing requirements are bypassed and mental shortcutting occurs [66,71,73,94].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
In the Asian disease problem and replications, the majority of participants will select their program choices based on how the information regarding lives saved/fatalities rates is framed.
“Consistently, the majority of participants will select their program choices based on how the information regarding lives saved/fatalities rates is framed [28,70,72-74].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
The utilization of heuristics in decision making is a robust source of influence in the assessment and judgment of decision options, such as the likelihood of contracting a disease, identifying probabilities of accidental fatalities, information identification, and pharmaceutical risk.
“The utilization of heuristics in decision making has been shown to be a robust source of influence in the assessment and judgment of decision options, such as the likelihood of contracting a disease, identifying probabilities of accidental fatalities, information identification, and pharmaceutical risk [66,71,73,75].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [73]
Cites
Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Forgas, J. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 · Cited by 3,470 · see citing works
Isen, A. M., & Geva, N. (1987) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(87)90034-3 · Cited by 450 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity
Gilbert, C. G. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.18803920 · Cited by 1,375 · see citing works
Get excited: reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement.
Brooks, A. W. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/a0035325 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Zhang, P. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.11 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
Affect, emotion, and decision making
George, J. M., & Dane, E. (2016) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.004 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Temple University (US)
- ORCID
- Ross, William T
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 298-324
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087274395
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 2.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- autopapers.ssrn.com
- Locations
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- positive affect, negative affect, mood induction, issue framing, threat framing, risk-taking, strategic decision-making, affective states, decision making under uncertainty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
