The DOI matches its Crossref record; 185 of the 189 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
Cites
The psychology of interpersonal relations
Heider, F. (1958) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089062 · Cited by 17,189
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. B
Press, H. (1886) · Cited by 10,087
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS
Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (2010) · Taylor & Francis eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203405321_chapter_1 · Cited by 8,589
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
ФАКТОРЫ ПСИХОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО БЛАГОПОЛУЧИЯ ЛЮДЕЙ ПОЖИЛОГО ВОЗРАСТА
Р., Н. М., & Ю., Б. С. (2026) · CyberLeninK (CyberLeninka) · doi:10.60797/irj.2026.170.43 · Cited by 7,969
Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.
Higgins, E. T. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319 · Cited by 7,219
Book Review: The Psychology of Attitudes
Chakravarti, D., Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1997) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151869 · Cited by 7,173
The Cognitive Structure of Emotions
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571299 · Cited by 6,208
Chaiken, S. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.39.5.752 · Cited by 5,516
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,013 of 1,013
The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment
Haidt, J. (2008) · Reasoning · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814273.055 · Cited by 27
INFLUENCES OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT ON DECISIONS INVOLVING JUDGMENTAL BIASES
Jundt, D. K., & Hinsz, V. B. (2002) · Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal · doi:10.2224/sbp.2002.30.1.45 · Cited by 23
How Do We Assess the Trustworthiness of AI? Introducing the Trustworthiness Assessment Model (TrAM)
Schlicker, N., Baum, K., Uhde, A., Sterz, S., Hirsch, M. C., & Langer, M. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qhwvx · Cited by 79
Emotional Reactivity and Police Expertise in Use-of-Force Decision-Making
Ta, V. P., Lande, B., & Suss, J. (2021) · Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology · doi:10.1007/s11896-020-09428-5 · Cited by 17
X. Emotion and Desire in Self-Deception
Mele, A. R. (2003) · Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement · doi:10.1017/s1358246100007955 · Cited by 16
Incidental Emotions and Hedonic Forecasting: The Role of (Un)certainty
Polyportis, A., Kokkinaki, F., Horváth, C., & Christopoulos, G. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.536376 · Cited by 15
The dynamism of daily justice: A person-environment fit perspective on the situated value of justice
Lennard, A. C., Matta, F. K., Lin, S.-H. (., Koopman, J., & Johnson, R. E. (2022) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1496 · Cited by 13
Collaborative Irrationality, Akrasia, and Groupthink: Social Disruptions of Emotion Regulation
Szanto, T. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02002 · Cited by 12
“Not only his fear of Ann’s guilt or desire that she is innocent but also his initial affection may weaken his motivation to assess such evidence (Forgas, 1995).”
BackgroundHong, D., & Kim, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265581 · Cited by 7
The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion
Haag, C. (2026) · Frontiers in Social Psychology · doi:10.3389/frsps.2026.1669672 · Cited by 1
“Research consistently demonstrates that intense emotions, regardless of valence, impair decision-making at both individual and group levels (Forgas, 1995; Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003).”
Influential(2000) · doi:10.4324/9781410606181.ch6 · Cited by 441
Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2
A metacognitive model and therapy for generalized anxiety disorder
Wells, A. (1999) · Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0879(199905)6:2
Metadata
- Authors
- Forgas, J. P.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Forgas, Joseph P.
- ORCID
- Forgas, Joseph P.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-66
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- 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
