CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,470Social and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).

Forgas, Joseph P.·1995·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evidence for the role of affective states in social judgments is reviewed, and a new integrative theory, the affect infusion model (AIM), is proposed as a comprehensive explanation of these effects. The AIM, based on a multiprocess approach to social judgments, identifies 4 alternative judgmental strategies: (a) direct access, (b) motivated, (c) heuristic, and (d) substantive processing. The model predicts that the degree of affect infusion into judgments varies along a processing continuum, such that judgments requiring heuristic or substantive processing are more likely to be infused by affect than are direct access or motivated judgments. The role of target, judge, and situational variables in recruiting high- or low-infusion judgmental strategies is considered, and empirical support for the model is reviewed. The relationship between the AIM and other affect-cognition theories is discussed, and implications for future research are outlined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39

Cites

185 of 185 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?

  • At higher intensities, whether positive or negative, emotion consistently impairs decision-making.

    “However, at higher intensities-whether positive or negativeemotion consistently impairs decision-making (Forgas, 1995).”

    From The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion (2026) · cites this paper as Forgas, 1995

  • Intense emotions, regardless of valence, impair decision-making at both individual and group levels.

    “Research consistently demonstrates that intense emotions, regardless of valence, impair decision-making at both individual and group levels (Forgas, 1995; Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003).”

    From The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion (2026) · cites this paper as Forgas, 1995

  • Positive affect has been shown to trigger quicker, more flexible, and more efficient processing strategies, while negative affect tends to trigger slower, more systematic, and more analytical processing strategies.

    “In general, positive affect has been shown to trigger quicker, more flexible, and more efficient processing strategies. Conversely, negative affect tends to trigger slower, more systematic, and more analytical processing strategies [6,77,79,88-92].”

    From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [89]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 189 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Forgas, J. P.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Forgas, Joseph P.
ORCID
Forgas, Joseph P.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995
Volume
117
Issue
1
Pages
39-66
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39
OpenAlex
W2088661631
Cited by
3,470
References
189
Citations by year
2026: 118 · 2025: 119 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 129 · 2022: 119 · 2021: 173 · 2020: 148 · 2019: 181 · 2018: 136 · 2017: 164 · 2016: 156 · 2015: 188 · 2014: 150 · 2013: 175 · 2012: 159
FWCI
107.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
affect infusion model, affective states, social judgment, heuristic processing, direct access, affect-cognition interaction, situational variables
MeSH terms
Affect, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Personality, Social Environment, Social Perception

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