The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making.
Abstract
Prior research has shown that people mispredict their own behavior and preferences across affective states. When people are in an affectively "cold" state, they fail to fully appreciate how "hot" states will affect their own preferences and behavior. When in hot states, they underestimate the influence of those states and, as a result, overestimate the stability of their current preferences. The same biases apply interpersonally; for example, people who are not affectively aroused underappreciate the impact of hot states on other people's behavior. After reviewing research documenting such intrapersonal and interpersonal hot-cold empathy gaps, this article examines their consequences for medical, and specifically cancer-related, decision making, showing, for example, that hot-cold empathy gaps can lead healthy persons to expose themselves excessively to health risks and can cause health care providers to undertreat patients for pain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,259
(1994) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 10,542
DESCARTES' ERROR: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain
Marg, E. (1995) · Optometry and Vision Science · doi:10.1002/j.1538-9235.1995.tb03988.x · Cited by 8,118
Well-being : the foundations of hedonic psychology
Kahneman, D. J., Diener, E. F., & Schwarz, N. (1999) · Cited by 7,466
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e560352009-001 · Cited by 6,921
(1996) · Cited by 3,692
Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior
Loewenstein, G. (1996) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0028 · Cited by 2,610
Self-citationLosing control: how and why people fail at self-regulation
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-6508 · Cited by 1,931
Gottlieb, R. (1987) · The New Yorker · Cited by 1,311
Lewis, M. D., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2000) · Cited by 1,304
Cited by
What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.21.2.153 · Cited by 2,668
Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behavior
Christov-Moore, L., Simpson, E. A., Coudé, G., Grigaityte, K., Iacoboni, M., & Ferrari, P. F. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.09.001 · Cited by 1,137
Patient preferences for shared decisions: A systematic review
Chewning, B., Bylund, C. L., Shah, B., Arora, N. K., Gueguen, J. A., & Makoul, G. (2012) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.02.004 · Cited by 849
Gneezy, U., & List, J. A. (2006) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00707.x · Cited by 699
Health Behavior Change: Moving from Observation to Intervention
Sheeran, P., Klein, W. M. P., & Rothman, A. J. (2017) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044007 · Cited by 438
Metadata
- Authors
- Loewenstein, G.
- Venue
- Health Psychology
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4, Suppl
- Pages
- S49-S56
- ISSN
- 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-7810
- OpenAlex
- W2133557336
- Cited by
- 503
- References
- 43
- FWCI
- 9.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.s49
- The paper
- Loewenstein, G. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.s49
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
