Fitting decisions: Mood and intuitive versus deliberative decision strategies

We investigated the influence of the compatibility between mood and decision strategies on the subjective value of a decision outcome. Several studies have provided evidence for the idea that a sad mood induces people to analyse information carefully, probably fitting well with a deliberative decision strategy. In a happy mood, people tend to act more strongly on their feelings, probably fitting well with an intuitive decision strategy. However, sometimes the situation demands the use of decision strategies that seem incompatible with mood states. We expected that decision makers would value a decision outcome higher in the case of a fit between mood and decision strategy than in the case of a non-fit. After a mood manipulation, participants were instructed to decide either based on their first affective reaction or after deliberation. Results confirmed our expectations: fitting decisions enhanced the subjective value of a decision outcome.

[1]  Jens Förster,et al.  How Global Versus Local Perception Fits Regulatory Focus , 2005, Psychological science.

[2]  Barbara Means,et al.  The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy. , 1983 .

[3]  Matthew D. Lieberman,et al.  Intuition: a social cognitive neuroscience approach. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  C. Betsch.  Präferenz für Intuition und Deliberation (PID) , 2004 .

[5]  R. Holland,et al.  In the winning mood: Affect in the Iowa gambling task , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[6]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. , 2001, Psychological review.

[7]  T. Wilson.  Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious , 2002 .

[8]  G. Clore,et al.  Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. , 1994 .

[9]  J. Stainer,et al.  The Emotions , 1922, Nature.

[10]  A. Dale,et al.  Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex: A role in reward-based decision making , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  D. Kahneman.  A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[14]  N. Liberman,et al.  Distinguishing Gains from Nonlosses and Losses from Nongains: A Regulatory Focus Perspective on Hedonic Intensity , 2000 .

[15]  G. Clore,et al.  Feelings and phenomenal experiences , 1996 .

[16]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Sufficient and necessary conditions in dual process models : The case of mood and information processing , 1999 .

[17]  N. Schwarz.  Feelings, Fit, and Funny Effects: A Situated Cognition Perspective , 2006, Journal of Marketing Research.

[18]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment , 2003 .

[19]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Locomotion, Assessment, and Regulatory Fit: Value Transfer from 'How' to 'What' , 2003 .

[20]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  How Regulatory Fit Affects Value in Consumer Choices and Opinions , 2006 .

[21]  A. Dijksterhuis.  Think different: the merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  Justus Julius Kunz,et al.  Individual strategy preferences and decisional fit , 2008 .

[23]  E. Higgins,et al.  Transfer of value from fit. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.