Cited by 744Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Decision Affect Theory: Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Risky Options

Mellers, Barbara A, Schwartz, Alan, Ho, Katty, Ritov, Ilana·1997·Psychological Science

Abstract

How do people feel about the outcomes of risky options? Results from two experiments demonstrate that the emotional reaction to a monetary outcome is not a simple function of the utility of that outcome Emotional responses also depend on probabilities and unobtained outcomes Unexpected outcomes have greater emotional impact than expected outcomes Furthermore any given outcome is less pleasant if an unobtained outcome is better We propose an account of emotional experiences associated with outcomes of decisions called decision affect theory It incorporates utilities expectations and counterfactual comparisons into hedonic responses Finally we show that choices between risky options can be described as the maximization of expected emotional experiences as predicted by decision affect theory That is people choose the risky option for which they expect to feel better on average

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00455.x

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • Emotion plays a role in decision-making.

    “It is widely acknowledged that emotion plays a role in decision-making, drawing on evidence from numerous behavioral studies using emotional stimuli as well as physiological, neuroimaging, and lesion studies.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Mellers, Barbara A
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
1997-11
Volume
8
Issue
6
Pages
423-429
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2125458573
Cited by
736
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 31
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
potential outcomes, hedonic response, risk preferences

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