The affect heuristic☆
Section snippets
Background
Although affect has long played a key role in many behavioral theories, it has rarely been recognized as an important component of human judgment and decision making. Perhaps befitting its rationalistic origins, the main focus of descriptive decision research has been cognitive, rather than affective. When principles of utility maximization appeared to be descriptively inadequate, Simon (1956) oriented the field toward problem solving and information-processing models based upon bounded
Manipulating preferences through controlled exposures
The fundamental nature and importance of affect has been demonstrated repeatedly in a remarkable series of studies by Robert Zajonc and his colleagues (see, e.g., Zajonc, 1968). The concept of stimulus exposure is central to all of these studies. The central finding is that, when objects are presented to an individual repeatedly, the “mere exposure” is capable of creating a positive attitude or preference for these objects.
In the typical study, stimuli such as nonsense phrases, or faces, or
The downside of affect
Throughout this paper we have made many claims for the affect heuristic, portraying it as the centerpiece of the experiential mode of thinking, the dominant mode of survival during the evolution of the human species. But, like other heuristics that provide efficient and generally adaptive responses but occasionally lead us astray, reliance on affect can also deceive us. Indeed, if it was always optimal to follow our affective and experiential instincts, there would have been no need for the
Conclusion
We hope that this rather selective and idiosyncratic tour through a mélange of experiments and conjectures has conveyed the sense of excitement we feel toward the affect heuristic. This heuristic appears at once both wondrous and frightening: wondrous in its speed, and subtlety, and sophistication, and its ability to “lubricate reason”; frightening in its dependency upon context and experience, allowing us to be led astray or manipulated—inadvertently or intentionally—silently and invisibly.
It
References (89)
- et al.
Adolescent health-threatening and health-enhancing behaviors: A study of word association and imagery
Journal of Adolescent Health
(1995) - et al.
Individuals with sociopathic behavior caused by frontal damage fail to respond autonomically to social stimuli
Behavioural Brain Research
(1990) - et al.
Psychophysical numbing: When lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase
Journal of Consumer Psychology
(1999) - et al.
Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgment of risk
Acta Psychologica
(1989) Elastic justification: How tempting but task-irrelevant factors influence decisions
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1995)Elastic justification: How unjustifiable factors influence judgments
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1996)- et al.
Distributional theories of impression formation
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1992) Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making
- et al.
Reason-based choice
Cognition
(1993) - et al.
A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit
Risk Analysis
(1994)
Foundations of information integration theory
Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987
Psychological Bulletin
Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain
Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Initial symptoms of nicotine dependence in adolescents
Tobacco Control
Techniques of attitude scale construction
Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious
American Psychologist
The influence of Christian name stereotypes on the marking of children’s essays
British Journal of Educational Psychology
Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility
Insensitivity to the value of human life: A study of psychophysical numbing
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Brand logo recognition by children ages 3 to 6 years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel
Journal of the American Medical Association
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
Policy Sciences
Judging risk and return of financial assets
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomenon
Psychological Review
Taking behavioralism seriously: Some evidence of market manipulation
Harvard Law Review
Taking behavioralism seriously: The problem of market manipulation
New York University Law Review
The joint failure of economic theory and legal regulation
Name stereotypes and teachers’ expectations
Journal of Educational Psychology
Psychopathy, fear arousal and anticipated pain
Psychological Reports
The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Less is better; When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
The affection effect in insurance decisions
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Positive affect and decision making
Explaining the identifiable victim effect
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
New challenges to the rationality assumption
Legal Theory
Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives
Psychological Review
Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Predicting a changing taste
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
Cited by (1114)
Patterns of affective images of animal-sourced food in Norway: Land versus sea
2024, Food Quality and PreferenceInvestment motives and performance expectations of impact investors
2024, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental FinanceInhibition of personal protective action against heat by gender stereotypes: A Japanese survey conducted in the summer of 2023
2024, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionCognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures: A Review
2024, Information Processing and ManagementExtreme Sentiment and Jumps in Analyst Forecast Dispersion
2024, Finance Research Letters
- ☆
Reprinted from Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (Eds.), 2002. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 397–420. © Cambridge University Press 2002. Reprinted with permission. Financial support for the writing of this paper was provided by the National Science Foundation under Grant SES 9876587.