Joint presentation reduces the effect of emotion on evaluation of public actions

In four experiments conducted on the world wide web, subjects evaluated the priority of policies presented separately or presented jointly in pairs, and/or reported their emotional responses to the problem that each policy addressed. Strength of emotional responses was more strongly related to priority when policies were presented separately than when they were presented jointly. We found evidence for one mechanism that could produce these results: joint presentation increases the evaluability of the policies, thus increasing the influence of cognitive evaluations of importance on priority judgements, and reducing the relative influence of emotional responses. We also found evidence that importance can affect emotional responses. We found no evidence for other mechanisms in which the emotions evoked by one item spread to the other item in joint presentation. The role of evaluability points to the applied value of evaluating policies in the context of alternatives.

[1]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values , 1997, Virology.

[3]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions , 1993 .

[4]  N. Srinivasan,et al.  Role of affect in decision making. , 2013, Progress in brain research.

[5]  Emerging sacred values: Iran's nuclear program , 2009 .

[6]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives , 1996 .

[7]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Distinction Bias: Misprediction and Mischoice Due to Joint Evaluation , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Craig A. Smith,et al.  Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Michel Tuan Pham.  The Logic of Feeling , 2004 .

[10]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[11]  Joseph P. Forgas,et al.  The role of emotion in social judgments: An introductory review and an Affect Infusion Model (AIM) , 1994 .

[12]  J. Baron.  Value Analysis of Political Behavior - Self-Interested - Moralistic - Altruistic - Moral , 2002 .

[13]  Andrew D. Engell,et al.  The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment , 2004, Neuron.

[14]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Regular ArticleProtected Values , 1997 .

[15]  R. Fazio.  On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview , 2001 .

[16]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood as Information: 20 Years Later , 2003 .

[17]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment , 2001, Science.

[18]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Chapter 4 Protected Values and Omission Bias as Deontological Judgments , 2009 .

[19]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Fang Yu,et al.  Lay Rationalism and Inconsistency between Predicted Experience and Decision , 2003 .

[21]  O. Mitchell,et al.  Pension Design and Structure , 2004 .

[22]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Understanding and Managing Conflicting Internal Preferences , 1998 .

[23]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. , 1983 .

[24]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values and Omission Bias. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[25]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values , 1993 .

[26]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. , 2002 .

[28]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method , 1994, Journal of risk and uncertainty.

[29]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[30]  M. Bazerman,et al.  negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences , 1998 .

[31]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  The role of affect in decision making. , 2003 .

[32]  E. Weber.  Who's Afraid of Poor Old-Age? Risk Perception of Risk Management Decisions , 1999 .

[33]  J. Baron,et al.  How serious are expressions of protected values? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[34]  C. Sunstein,et al.  Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation , 1999 .

[35]  K. Scherer,et al.  Handbook of affective sciences. , 2003 .

[36]  A. Tenbrunsel,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 2013 .

[37]  The effect of normative beliefs on anticipated emotions. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.