Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2010, Vol 5, Issue 5
Abstract
Often to the detriment of human decision making, people are prone to an impact bias when making affective forecasts, overestimating the emotional consequences of future events. The cognitive processes underlying the impact bias, and methods for correcting it, have been debated and warrant further exploration. In the present investigation, we examined both individual differences and contextual variables associated with cognitive processing in affective forecasting for an election. Results showed that the perceived importance of the event and working memory capacity were both associated with an increased impact bias for some participants, whereas retrieval interference had no relationship with bias. Additionally, an experimental manipulation effectively reduced biased forecasts, particularly among participants who were most distracted thinking about peripheral life events. These findings have theoretical implications for understanding the impact bias, highlight the importance of individual differences in affective forecasting, and have ramifications for future decision making research. The possible functional role of the impact bias is discussed within the context of evolutionary psychology.
Authors and Affiliations
Michael Hoerger, Stuart W. Quirk, Richard E. Lucas and Thomas H. Carr
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677751
- DOI -
- Views 138
- Downloads 0
Physiological arousal in processing recognition information: Ignoring or integrating cognitive cues?
The recognition heuristic (RH; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002) suggests that, when applicable, probabilistic inferences are based on a noncompensatory examination of whether an object is recognized or not. The overall find...
It’s personal: The effect of personal value on utilitarian moral judgments
We investigated whether the personal importance of objects influences utilitarian decision-making in which damaging property is necessary to produce an overall positive outcome. In Experiment 1, participants judged savin...
What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing
For two decades, researchers have investigated the correlates and consequences of individual differences in maximizing, the tendency to pursue the goal of making the best possible choice by extensively seeking out and co...
Does unconscious thought outperform conscious thought on complex decisions? A further examination
Two experiments examined the benefits of unconscious thought on complex decisions (Dijksterhuis, 2004). Experiment 1 attempted to replicate and extend past research by examining the effect of providing reasons prior to r...
Are additives unnatural? Generality and mechanisms of additivity dominance
Naturalness is important and valued by most lay Western individuals. Yet, little is known about the lay meaning of “natural”. We examine the phenomenon of additivity dominance: adding something to a natural product (addi...