Literature DB >> 14979749

Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value.

Christopher K Hsee1, Yuval Rottenstreich.   

Abstract

This research investigated the relationship between the magnitude or scope of a stimulus and its subjective value by contrasting 2 psychological processes that may be used to construct preferences: valuation by feeling and valuation by calculation. The results show that when people rely on feeling, they are sensitive to the presence or absence of a stimulus (i.e., the difference between 0 and some scope) but are largely insensitive to further variations of scope. In contrast, when people rely on calculation, they reveal relatively more constant sensitivity to scope. Thus, value is nearly a step function of scope when feeling predominates and is closer to a linear function when calculation predominates. These findings may allow for a novel interpretation of why most real-world value functions are concave and how the processes responsible for nonlinearity of value may also contribute to nonlinear probability weighting. ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14979749     DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.1.23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  30 in total

1.  More intense experiences, less intense forecasts: why people overweight probability specifications in affective forecasts.

Authors:  Eva C Buechel; Jiao Zhang; Carey K Morewedge; Joachim Vosgerau
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2013-10-14

2.  War as a moral imperative (not just practical politics by other means).

Authors:  Jeremy Ginges; Scott Atran
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2011-02-16       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Emotions and scope effects in the monetary valuation of health.

Authors:  María V Avilés Blanco; Raúl Brey; Jorge Araña; José Luis Pinto Prades
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-03-24

4.  A formal model of fuzzy-trace theory: Variations on framing effects and the Allais paradox.

Authors:  David A Broniatowski; Valerie F Reyna
Journal:  Decision (Wash D C )       Date:  2017-05-29

5.  Group size and the framing effect: threats to human beings and animals.

Authors:  Amber N Bloomfield
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-06

Review 6.  Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response.

Authors:  Jay J Van Bavel; Katherine Baicker; Paulo S Boggio; Valerio Capraro; Aleksandra Cichocka; Mina Cikara; Molly J Crockett; Alia J Crum; Karen M Douglas; James N Druckman; John Drury; Oeindrila Dube; Naomi Ellemers; Eli J Finkel; James H Fowler; Michele Gelfand; Shihui Han; S Alexander Haslam; Jolanda Jetten; Shinobu Kitayama; Dean Mobbs; Lucy E Napper; Dominic J Packer; Gordon Pennycook; Ellen Peters; Richard E Petty; David G Rand; Stephen D Reicher; Simone Schnall; Azim Shariff; Linda J Skitka; Sandra Susan Smith; Cass R Sunstein; Nassim Tabri; Joshua A Tucker; Sander van der Linden; Paul van Lange; Kim A Weeden; Michael J A Wohl; Jamil Zaki; Sean R Zion; Robb Willer
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2020-04-30

7.  Factors Affecting Physicians' Intentions to Communicate Personalized Prognostic Information to Cancer Patients at the End of Life: An Experimental Vignette Study.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Nathan F Dieckmann; Christina Holt; Caitlin Gutheil; Ellen Peters
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Reasoning and mathematical skills contribute to normatively superior decision making under risk: evidence from the game of dice task.

Authors:  Marie-Theres Pertl; Laura Zamarian; Margarete Delazer
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2017-05-04

Review 9.  Emotion and decision-making: affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression.

Authors:  Martin P Paulus; Angela J Yu
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 20.229

10.  Explanations for side effect aversion in preventive medical treatment decisions.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Neil D Weinstein; Graham A Colditz; Karen Emmons
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.267

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.