Cited by 3,325Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsRisk Perception and ManagementPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Fear, anger, and risk.

Lerner, Jennifer S., Keltner, Dacher·2001·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Drawing on an appraisal-tendency framework (J. S. Lerner & D. Keltner, 2000), the authors predicted and found that fear and anger have opposite effects on risk perception. Whereas fearful people expressed pessimistic risk estimates and risk-averse choices, angry people expressed optimistic risk estimates and risk-seeking choices. These opposing patterns emerged for naturally occurring and experimentally induced fear and anger. Moreover, estimates of angry people more closely resembled those of happy people than those of fearful people. Consistent with predictions, appraisal tendencies accounted for these effects: Appraisals of certainty and control moderated and (in the case of control) mediated the emotion effects. As a complement to studies that link affective valence to judgment outcomes, the present studies highlight multiple benefits of studying specific emotions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Under an attentional reframing account, consequence framing shifts the decision-maker's frame from responding to a recommendation to predicting an outcome, preserving independent judgment without requiring additional cognitive effort.

    “Under an attentional reframing account, consequence framing shifts the decision-maker's frame from responding to a recommendation to predicting an outcome, preserving independent judgment without requiring additional cognitive effort (Loewenstein et al. 2001;Lerner and Keltner 2001).”

    From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Lerner and Keltner 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2001
Volume
81
Issue
1
Pages
146-159
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2124911764
Cited by
3,325
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 148 · 2025: 160 · 2024: 198 · 2023: 195 · 2022: 211 · 2021: 219 · 2020: 208 · 2019: 204 · 2018: 150 · 2017: 176 · 2016: 171 · 2015: 174 · 2014: 160 · 2013: 135 · 2012: 140
FWCI
20.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH15750, T32MH015750)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
fear, anger, risk perception, risk-taking, emotional valence, optimism, pessimism, emotion and judgment, happiness
MeSH terms
Adult, Anger, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Risk, Risk-Taking, United States

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