Studies of Psychology and Behavior

Studies of Psychology and Behavior >

2022 , Vol. 20 >Issue 3: 325 - 331

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.03.006

The Impact of the Affect Heuristic on Risky Choice

  • MIAO Xiuying ,
  • CHI Lizhong
Expand
  • School of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing 100084

Received date: 2021-12-08

  Online published: 2022-05-20

Fold

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the effect of the affect heuristic on risky choices. Study 1 revised the Chinese version of the affect heuristic questionnaire based on the data of 687 college students online and offline, to use the risk-benefit correlation coefficient of this questionnaire as a measure of affect heuristic tendency. One hundred and three college students participated in study 2 who were required to complete the Affect Heuristic Questionnaire. Based on the absolute value of risk-benefit correlation coefficients, participants that ranked in either the top 20% or the bottom 20% were allocated into the high and low affect heuristic groups separately. The two groups were then required to complete a risky choice task. Results showed that: 1) The Chinese version of the Affect Heuristic Questionnaire had good reliability and validity and could be used as a test questionnaire to test affect heuristic tendency. 2) When the risky choice task activated negative emotions, participants with high affect heuristic tendency were more susceptible to negative emotions and had a higher subjective value of risk judgment compared to those with low affect heuristic tendency. The study reveals the impact of the affect heuristic on risky choices and provides empirical support for the importance of the affect heuristic as a basis for individuals to make risky judgments.

Key words： affect heuristic; risky choice; reliability and validity

Cite this article

MIAO Xiuying , CHI Lizhong . The Impact of the Affect Heuristic on Risky Choice[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022 , 20(3) : 325 -331 . DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.03.006

References

艾炎, 胡竹菁. (2018). 推理判断中双重加工过程的协作与转换机制. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1794–1806
陈海贤, 何贵兵. (2011). 识解水平对跨期选择和风险选择的影响. 心理学报, 43(4), 442–452
李海军, 徐富明, 王伟, 相鹏, 罗寒冰. (2014). 判断与决策中的情感启发式. 心理科学, 37(5), 1238–1244
苗秀影, 曹立智, 迟立忠. (2022). 教练员−运动员关系对训练比赛满意感的影响: 领悟社会支持的中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 30(1), 149–152, 156.
孙彦, 李纾, 殷晓莉. (2007). 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 721–726
Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2016). The stability of risk and benefit perceptions: A longitudinal study assessing the perception of biotechnology. Journal of Risk Research, 19(4), 461–475, doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.988169.
Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30(7), 1116–1128, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01404.x.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2006). The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 378–395, doi: 10.3758/bf03193858.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(4), 321–339, doi: 10.1080/13546780601008825.
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255–278, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191, doi: 10.3758/bf03193146.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S.
Goel, V., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition, 87(1), B11–B22, doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00185-3.
Hine, D. W., Clarke, K., Marks, A. D. G., & Morgan, M. I. (2019). Feelings about fracking: Using the affect heuristic to understand opposition to coal seam gas production. Risk Analysis, 39(3), 586–598, doi: 10.1111/risa.13168.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: MacMillan.
Keller, C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631–639, doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00773.x.
Kralik, J. D., Xu, E. R., Knight, E. J., Khan, S. A., & Levine, W. J. (2012). When less is more: Evolutionary origins of the affect heuristic. PLoS One, 7(10), e46240, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046240.
Loewenstein, G. F., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 619–642). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mukherjee, K. (2010). A dual system model of preferences under risk. Psychological Review, 117(1), 243–255, doi: 10.1037/a0017884.
Petracca, E. (2020). Two and a half systems: The sensory-motor system in dual-process judgment and decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 13(1), 1–18.
Scherer, L. D., Shaffer, V. A., Caverly, T., Scherer, A. M., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Kullgren, J. T., & Fagerlin, A. (2018). The role of the affect heuristic and cancer anxiety in responding to negative information about medical tests. Psychology & Health, 33(2), 292–312, doi: 10.1080/08870446.2017.1316848.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it? Informative functions of affective states. In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and social behavior (pp. 44–62). Toronto, Canoda: C.J. Hogrefe.
Shan, Y. X., & Yang, L. L. (2017). Fast and frugal heuristics and naturalistic decision making: A review of their commonalities and differences. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(1), 10–32, doi: 10.1080/13546783.2016.1152999.
Skagerlund, K., Forsblad, M., Slovic, P., & V?stfj?ll, D. (2020). The affect heuristic and risk perception-stability across elicitation methods and individual cognitive abilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 970, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00970.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006.
Trujillo, C. A. (2018). The complementary role of affect-based and cognitive heuristics to make decisions under conditions of ambivalence and complexity. PLoS One, 13(11), e0206724, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206724.
V?stfj?ll, D., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2014). The affect heuristic, mortality salience, and risk: Domain-specific effects of a natural disaster on risk-benefit perception. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(6), 527–532, doi: 10.1111/sjop.12166.
V?stfj?ll, D., Slovic, P., Burns, W. J., Erlandsson, A., Koppel, L., Asutay, E., .. Tingh?g, G. (2016). The arithmetic of emotion: Integration of incidental and integral affect in judgments and decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 325, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00325.
Watson, S. J., Zizzo, D. J., & Fleming, P. (2017). Risk, benefit, and moderators of the affect heuristic in a widespread unlawful activity: Evidence from a survey of unlawful file-sharing behavior. Risk Analysis, 37(6), 1146–1156, doi: 10.1111/risa.12689.
Wu, L., Zeng, S., & Wu, Y. (2018). Affect heuristic and format effect in risk perception. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(8), 1331–1344, doi: 10.2224/sbp.6957.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Copyright © Editorial office of Studies of Psychology and Behavior
Tel: 022-23540231, 23541213　E-mail: psybeh@126.com