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
The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review
Gross, J. J. (1998) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271 · Cited by 9,916
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Well-being : the foundations of hedonic psychology
Kahneman, D. J., Diener, E. F., & Schwarz, N. (1999) · Cited by 7,472
Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 · Cited by 6,077
Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Russell, J. A. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.145 · Cited by 6,113
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