Incidentally elicited multiple, discrete emotions have differential effects on risky behavior: The action priming perspective

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-08-16 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2346
David Matsumoto, Matthew Wilson
{"title":"Incidentally elicited multiple, discrete emotions have differential effects on risky behavior: The action priming perspective","authors":"David Matsumoto,&nbsp;Matthew Wilson","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We present a novel theoretical framework called the Action Priming Perspective to predict effects of discrete emotions on judgment and decision-making and report results from two studies examining five discrete emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness) and neutral on a behavioral task of risky decision-making. We tested two hypotheses concerning single and combinatorial effects of the emotions based on previous theoretical and empirical work delineating the action priming functions of discrete emotions. As predicted, a fear–sadness combination, elicited separately but combined for analyses, produced the highest risk-taking behavior, higher than an anger–disgust combination (also elicited separately but combined for analyses). Sadness also produced more risky behavior than did disgust, as predicted. These effects, however, did not occur when the task was less uncertain. These findings were discussed vis-à-vis understanding implications of specific, discrete emotions on risky, ambiguous judgment and decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":"36 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2346","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We present a novel theoretical framework called the Action Priming Perspective to predict effects of discrete emotions on judgment and decision-making and report results from two studies examining five discrete emotions (anger, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness) and neutral on a behavioral task of risky decision-making. We tested two hypotheses concerning single and combinatorial effects of the emotions based on previous theoretical and empirical work delineating the action priming functions of discrete emotions. As predicted, a fear–sadness combination, elicited separately but combined for analyses, produced the highest risk-taking behavior, higher than an anger–disgust combination (also elicited separately but combined for analyses). Sadness also produced more risky behavior than did disgust, as predicted. These effects, however, did not occur when the task was less uncertain. These findings were discussed vis-à-vis understanding implications of specific, discrete emotions on risky, ambiguous judgment and decision-making.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
偶然引发的多重、离散的情绪对冒险行为有不同的影响:行动启动的观点
我们提出了一个新的理论框架,称为行动启动视角来预测离散情绪对判断和决策的影响,并报告了两项研究的结果,研究了五种离散情绪(愤怒、厌恶、恐惧、快乐和悲伤)和中性情绪在风险决策行为任务中的作用。我们基于先前描述离散情绪的动作启动功能的理论和实证工作,测试了关于情绪的单一和组合效应的两个假设。正如预测的那样,恐惧-悲伤组合(单独引出但结合分析)产生了最高的冒险行为,高于愤怒-厌恶组合(也单独引出但结合分析)。正如预测的那样,悲伤也会比厌恶产生更多的冒险行为。然而,当任务的不确定性降低时,这些影响就不会发生。这些研究结果针对特定的、离散的情绪对风险、模糊的判断和决策的影响进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Prescribing Agreement Improves Judgments and Decisions Issue Information Do We Use Relatively Bad (Algorithmic) Advice? The Effects of Performance Feedback and Advice Representation on Advice Usage Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1