IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v108y2009i2p267-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus

Author

Listed:
  • Pham, Michel Tuan
  • Avnet, Tamar

Abstract

Results from four studies show that the reliance on affect as a heuristic of judgment and decision making is more pronounced under a promotion focus than under a prevention focus. Two different manifestations of this phenomenon were observed. Studies 1-3 show that different types of affective inputs are weighted more heavily under promotion than under prevention in person-impression formation, product evaluations, and social recommendations. Study 4 additionally shows that valuations performed under promotion are more scope-insensitive--a characteristic of affect-based valuations--than valuations performed under prevention. The greater reliance on affect as a heuristic under promotion seems to arise because promotion-focused individuals tend to find affective inputs more diagnostic, not because promotion increases the reliance on peripheral information per se.

Suggested Citation

  • Pham, Michel Tuan & Avnet, Tamar, 2009. "Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 267-278, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:108:y:2009:i:2:p:267-278
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(08)00105-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brockner, Joel & Paruchuri, Srikanth & Idson, Lorraine Chen & Higgins, E. Tory, 2002. "Regulatory Focus and the Probability Estimates of Conjunctive and Disjunctive Events," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 5-24, January.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Economic Preferences or Attitude Expressions?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 203-235, December.
    3. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    4. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    5. Crowe, Ellen & Higgins, E. Tory, 1997. "Regulatory Focus and Strategic Inclinations: Promotion and Prevention in Decision-Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 117-132, February.
    6. Forster, Jens & Higgins, E. Tory & Bianco, Amy Taylor, 2003. "Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 148-164, January.
    7. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    8. Pham, Michel Tuan, 1998. "Representativeness, Relevance, and the Use of Feelings in Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(2), pages 144-159, September.
    9. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. "Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-136, March-May.
    10. Ratner, Rebecca K. & Herbst, Kenneth C., 2005. "When good decisions have bad outcomes: The impact of affect on switching behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 23-37, January.
    11. Tuan Pham, Michel & Meyvis, Tom & Zhou, Rongrong, 2001. "Beyond the Obvious: Chronic Vividness of Imagery and the Use of Information in Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 226-253, March.
    12. Pham, Michel Tuan & Avnet, Tamar, 2004. "Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 503-518, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sengupta, Atri & Deb, Soumya Guha & Mittal, Shashank, 2021. "The underlying motivational process behind portfolio diversification choice decisions of individual investors: An experimental design," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C).
    2. Yulin Chen, 2019. "The Sustainable Development of Social Media Contents: An Analysis of Concrete and Abstract Information on Cultural and Creative Institutions with “Artist” and “Ordinary People” Positioning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, July.
    3. Kirsten Cowan & Atefeh Yazdanparast, 2021. "Consequences of Moral Transgressions: How Regulatory Focus Orientation Motivates or Hinders Moral Decoupling," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 115-132, April.
    4. Ferrer, Rebecca A. & Lipkus, Isaac M. & Cerully, Jennifer L. & McBride, Colleen M. & Shepperd, James A. & Klein, William M.P., 2017. "Developing a scale to assess health regulatory focus," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 50-60.
    5. Heitz-Spahn, Sandrine & Belaud, Lydie & Ferrandi, Jean-Marc, 2024. "A regulatory focus theory approach to understanding cross-channel free-riding behaviour," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Kramer, Thomas & Yucel-Aybat, Ozge & Lau-Gesk, Loraine, 2011. "The effect of schadenfreude on choice of conventional versus unconventional options," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 140-147, September.
    7. Ricky Y. K. Chan, 2021. "Do chief information officers matter for sustainable development? Impact of their regulatory focus on green information technology strategies and corporate performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2523-2534, July.
    8. Samson, Alain & Voyer, Benjamin G., 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47252, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Xiaomei Wang & Lin Zhang & Xiaoyu Jiang & Jia Wang, 2021. "Promoting Water Conservation Based on the Matching Effect of Regulatory Focus and Emotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-12, February.
    10. Zheng, Chundong & Liu, Xinru & Liu, Shuqin, 2024. "How to make busy individuals donate more? The matching effect of charitable appeals and busyness on willingness to donate," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    11. Adams, Leen & Faseur, Tineke & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "The Influence of the Self-Regulatory Focus on the Effectiveness of Stop-Smoking Campaigns for Young Smokers," Working Papers 2010/38, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    12. Florack, Arnd & Keller, Johannes & Palcu, Johanna, 2013. "Regulatory focus in economic contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 127-137.
    13. Jungsil Choi & Kiljae Lee & Yong-Yeon Ji, 2012. "What type of framing message is more appropriate with nine-ending pricing?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 603-614, September.
    14. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    15. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    16. Rasim Serdar Kurdoglu & Nüfer Yasin Ateş, 2022. "Arguing to Defeat: Eristic Argumentation and Irrationality in Resolving Moral Concerns," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 519-535, January.
    17. Samson, Alain & Voyer, Benjamin G., 2014. "Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 21-33.
    18. Alain Samson & Benjamin G. Voyer, 2012. "Two minds, three ways: dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 2(2), pages 48-71, December.
    19. Yu, Xi & Huang, Huiling & Liu, Stephanie Q. & Lu, Zhi, 2020. "Signaling authenticity of ethnic cuisines via handwriting," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    20. Higgins, E. Tory & Cornwell, James F.M., 2016. "Securing foundations and advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on judgment & decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 56-67.
    21. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    22. Pham, Michel Tuan & Faraji-Rad, Ali & Toubia, Olivier & Lee, Leonard, 2015. "Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 81-94.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pham, Michel Tuan & Faraji-Rad, Ali & Toubia, Olivier & Lee, Leonard, 2015. "Affect as an ordinal system of utility assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 81-94.
    2. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    3. Tine Bock & Patrick Kenhove, 2010. "Consumer Ethics: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(2), pages 241-255, December.
    4. Gino, Francesca & Margolis, Joshua D., 2011. "Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (Un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 145-156, July.
    5. Samson, Alain & Voyer, Benjamin G., 2014. "Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 21-33.
    6. Sun, Jin & Keh, Hean Tat & Lee, Angela Y., 2019. "Shaping consumer preference using alignable attributes: The roles of regulatory orientation and construal level," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 151-168.
    7. Cheng, Yimin & Zhang, Kuangjie & Zhuang, Xuhong, 2024. "Follow your heart or your mind: The effect of consumption frequency on consumers’ reliance on feelings," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Bhargave, Rajesh & Chakravarti, Amitav & Guha, Abhijit, 2015. "Two-stage decisions increase preference for hedonic options," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 64119, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Adams, Leen & Faseur, Tineke & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "The Influence of the Self-Regulatory Focus on the Effectiveness of Stop-Smoking Campaigns for Young Smokers," Working Papers 2010/38, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    10. Florack, Arnd & Keller, Johannes & Palcu, Johanna, 2013. "Regulatory focus in economic contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 127-137.
    11. Aydinli, Aylin & Gu, Yangjie & Pham, Michel Tuan, 2017. "An experience-utility explanation of the preference for larger assortments," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 746-760.
    12. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    13. Martin Binder & Leonhard K. Lades, 2015. "Autonomy-Enhancing Paternalism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(1), pages 3-27, February.
    14. Poels, Karolien & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2008. "Hope and self-regulatory goals applied to an advertising context: Promoting prevention stimulates goal-directed behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 1030-1040, October.
    15. Drew Fudenberg, 2006. "Advancing Beyond Advances in Behavioral Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 694-711, September.
    16. Chung-Chau Chang & Bo-Chi Lin & Shin-Shin Chang, 2011. "The relative advantages of benefit overlap versus category similarity in brand extension evaluation: The moderating role of self-regulatory focus," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 391-404, November.
    17. Johnson, Russell E. & King, Danielle D. & (Joanna) Lin, Szu-Han & Scott, Brent A. & Jackson Walker, Erin M. & Wang, Mo, 2017. "Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 29-45.
    18. Dewitte, Siegfried, 2013. "From willpower breakdown to the breakdown of the willpower model – The symmetry of self-control and impulsive behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 16-25.
    19. Donald R. Lehmann & Jeffrey R. Parker, 2017. "Disadoption," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 7(1), pages 36-51, June.
    20. Cappelletti, Dominique & Güth, Werner & Ploner, Matteo, 2011. "Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 940-950.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:108:y:2009:i:2:p:267-278. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.