Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors
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 ex...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2010-08-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002163/type/journal_article |
| _version_ | 1797702599086964736 |
|---|---|
| author | Michael Hoerger Stuart W. Quirk Richard E. Lucas Thomas H. Carr |
| author_facet | Michael Hoerger Stuart W. Quirk Richard E. Lucas Thomas H. Carr |
| author_sort | Michael Hoerger |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:53:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f187f1f7146847fdb44feb8975100a22 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:53:20Z |
| publishDate | 2010-08-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-f187f1f7146847fdb44feb8975100a222023-09-03T09:20:21ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752010-08-01536537310.1017/S1930297500002163Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errorsMichael Hoerger0Stuart W. Quirk1Richard E. Lucas2Thomas H. Carr3Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical CenterDepartment of Psychology, Central Michigan UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State UniversityDepartment of Psychology, Michigan State UniversityOften 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.https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002163/type/journal_articleaffective forecastingimpact biasfocalismimmune neglectworking memory |
| spellingShingle | Michael Hoerger Stuart W. Quirk Richard E. Lucas Thomas H. Carr Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors Judgment and Decision Making affective forecasting impact bias focalism immune neglect working memory |
| title | Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors |
| title_full | Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors |
| title_fullStr | Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors |
| title_short | Cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors |
| title_sort | cognitive determinants of affective forecasting errors |
| topic | affective forecasting impact bias focalism immune neglect working memory |
| url | https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002163/type/journal_article |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT michaelhoerger cognitivedeterminantsofaffectiveforecastingerrors AT stuartwquirk cognitivedeterminantsofaffectiveforecastingerrors AT richardelucas cognitivedeterminantsofaffectiveforecastingerrors AT thomashcarr cognitivedeterminantsofaffectiveforecastingerrors |