INFLUENCES OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT ON DECISIONS INVOLVING JUDGMENTAL BIASES
Open accessAbstract
This study examines the influences of positive and negative affect on decisions involving seven judgmental biases. For nonpersonally relevant biases, it was hypothesized that negative affect would lead to more in-depth thinking and less biased decisions while positive affect would lead to shallower thinking and more biased responses. For the personally relevant self-serving bias, it was hypothesized that negative affect would lead to more shallow processing and more biased responses, while positive affect would lead to more in-depth processing and less biased responses. Significantly biased responses were found for all of the judgmental biases. Results supported the hypotheses for the self-serving biases, but not for the nonpersonally relevant biases, suggesting that affect may have differential influences on personally relevant and nonpersonally relevant judgments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Positive affect has been shown to trigger quicker, more flexible, and more efficient processing strategies, while negative affect tends to trigger slower, more systematic, and more analytical processing strategies.
“In general, positive affect has been shown to trigger quicker, more flexible, and more efficient processing strategies. Conversely, negative affect tends to trigger slower, more systematic, and more analytical processing strategies [6,77,79,88-92].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [91]
Individuals with high levels of negative affect are more prone to make biased choices when decisions were personally relevant.
“For example, individuals with high levels of negative affect are more prone to make biased choices when decisions were personally relevant [91].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [91]
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jundt, D. K., & Hinsz, V. B.
- Venue
- Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal
- Publisher
- Scientific Journal Publishers Ltd
- Published
- 2002-01-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-52
- ISSN
- 0301-2212 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2071902938
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- positive affect, negative affect, self-serving bias, decision-making, levels of processing, cognitive biases
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
