The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment
Abstract
Multidisciplinary evidence suggests that people often make evaluative judgments by monitoring their feelings toward the target. This article examines, in the context of moderately complex and consciously accessible stimuli, the judgmental properties of consciously monitored feelings. Results from four studies show that, compared to cold, reason-based assessments of the target, the conscious monitoring of feelings provides judgmental responses that are (a) potentially faster, (b) more stable and consistent across individuals, and importantly (c) more predictive of the number and valence of people's thoughts. These findings help explain why the monitoring of feelings is an often diagnostic pathway to evaluation in judgment and decision making.
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
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
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
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: dynamics of willpower
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3 · Cited by 2,931
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265 · Cited by 1,970
Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments.
Lingle, J. H., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.2.180 · Cited by 256
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
Joy, A., & Sherry, Jr. (2003) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/376802 · Cited by 604
Emotion and Rationality: A Critical Review and Interpretation of Empirical Evidence
Pham, M. T. (2007) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.155 · Cited by 552
Self-citationZhang, P. (2013) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.11 · Cited by 331
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-09
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 167-188
- ISSN
- 0093-5301 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5277
- OpenAlex
- W2107488010
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 7.47
- 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: Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/322896
- The paper
- Pham, M. T., Cohen, J. B., Pracejus, J. W., & Hughes, G. D. (2001). Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/322896
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.
