The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sometimes It Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect-Consistent and Affect-Inconsistent Product Information
Abstract
An affect-confirmation process is proposed to explain the conditions in which information that is similar in valence (i.e., evaluatively consistent) with a person’s mood is weighted more heavily in product judgments. Specifically, the affect that participants experience as a result of a transitory mood state may appear to either confirm or disconfirm their reactions to product information, leading them to give this information more or less weight when evaluating the product as a whole. This affective confirmation typically occurs when hedonic criteria are considered more important in evaluation than utilitarian criteria. Four experiments confirmed implications of this conceptualization. The affect that people experience at the time they receive information about an object can influence the manner in which they process this information and, therefore, the judgments that follow. This influence has been detected in both consumer judgment and elsewhere (for reviews, see Clore, Schwarz, and Conway [1994]; Cohen and Areni
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
Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209376 · Cited by 6,020
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Bower, G. H. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.2.129 · Cited by 4,154
Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Forgas, J. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 · Cited by 3,470
Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making
Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209563 · Cited by 2,044
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209361 · Cited by 1,973
Individual differences in intraperson variability in mood.
Penner, L. A., Shiffman, S., Paty, J. A., & Fritzsche, B. A. (1994) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.712 · Cited by 112
Cited by
How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005 · Cited by 881
Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2015) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.967183 · Cited by 336
System design effects on online impulse buying.
Ning Shen, K., & Khalifa, M. (2012) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662241211250962 · Cited by 226
The effect of gender stereotypes on artificial intelligence recommendations
Ahn, J., Kim, J., & Sung, Y. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.007 · Cited by 207
Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/596026 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Adaval, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-17
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2108721766
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 3.60
- 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
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.
