Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36582312›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Be optimistic or be cautious? Affective forecasting bias in allocation decisions and its effect.

Lei Liu, Wujun Sun, Ping Fang, Yuan Jiang, Li Tian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lei LiuSchool of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China.
Wujun SunFaculty of Education, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang, China.
Ping FangCollege of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.
Yuan JiangCollege of Psychology, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Li TianCollege of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: People's forecasts of their future emotions play an essential role in their behavior and experience of well-being. However, their emotional reactions may fall short of what they expect, which has implications for subsequent decision making. The current paper investigated the accuracy of affective forecasting about resource allocations and how this (in)accuracy predicts future allocation decisions. Methods: Two experimental studies were conducted. Study 1 ( Results: Study 1 found an affective forecasting bias, and people anticipated more powerful emotional reactions to both positive and negative allocation events than they actually experienced when the events occurred. Study 2 found that increased affective forecasting bias resulted in less generous decisions in positive event conditions and more generous decisions in negative event conditions. Discussion: These results extend previous findings concerning affective forecasting bias and the feelings-as-information model in resource allocation interactions and show that the difference between anticipated and experienced emotion is also informative in allocation decisions. The results suggest that being more cautious when forecasting positive outcomes and more optimistic when forecasting negative outcomes can be beneficial to one's well-being.

Indexed as

affective forecastingaffective forecasting biasallocation decisionsgenerosityultimatum gamewell-being

Identifiers

PMID36582312
PMCPMC9793408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.