CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5,955Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsRisk Perception and ManagementLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

Risk as feelings.

Loewenstein, George F., Weber, Elke U., Hsee, Christopher K., Welch, Ned·2001·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Virtually all current theories of choice under risk or uncertainty are cognitive and consequentialist. They assume that people assess the desirability and likelihood of possible outcomes of choice alternatives and integrate this information through some type of expectation-based calculus to arrive at a decision. The authors propose an alternative theoretical perspective, the risk-as-feelings hypothesis, that highlights the role of affect experienced at the moment of decision making. Drawing on research from clinical, physiological, and other subfields of psychology, they show that emotional reactions to risky situations often diverge from cognitive assessments of those risks. When such divergence occurs, emotional reactions often drive behavior. The risk-as-feelings hypothesis is shown to explain a wide range of phenomena that have resisted interpretation in cognitive-consequentialist terms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267

Cites

224 of 224 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?

  • Much evidence demonstrates the significant role of affect in human judgment.

    “Much evidence demonstrates the significant role of affect in human judgment (Lerner et al., 2015; Loewenstein et al., 2001; Slovic et al., 2007).”

    From Everyone I Don’t Like Is Biased: Affective Evaluations and the Bias Blind Spot (2026) · cites this paper as Loewenstein et al., 2001

  • Under the risk-as-feelings hypothesis, affective responses to vivid outcome representations drive decision behavior by increasing motivational engagement.

    “Under the alternative risk-as-feelings hypothesis (Loewenstein et al. 2001;Slovic et al. 2004), affective responses to vivid outcome representations drive decision behavior by increasing motivational engagement.”

    From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Loewenstein et al. 2001

  • 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 Loewenstein et al. 2001

  • Participants in our study anticipated their responses to gains and losses and chose accordingly.

    “Just as recent work demonstrating that individuals' anticipation of loss may shift their choices (38), it appears that participants in our study similarly anticipated their responses to gains and losses and chose accordingly (39).”

    From Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals' loss aversion (2009) · cites this paper as [39]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001
Volume
127
Issue
2
Pages
267-286
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
OpenAlex
W3124896223
Cited by
5,955
References
224
Citations by year
2026: 287 · 2025: 261 · 2024: 276 · 2023: 260 · 2022: 330 · 2021: 393 · 2020: 316 · 2019: 313 · 2018: 264 · 2017: 257 · 2016: 265 · 2015: 283 · 2014: 303 · 2013: 277 · 2012: 304
FWCI
56.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
risk perception, decision making under risk, uncertainty, emotional decision-making
MeSH terms
Cognition, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Models, Psychological, Risk-Taking

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