ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Divergent directions of bias: affective forecasting in younger vs. older adults and the role of affective working memory.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Affective forecasting is crucial for decision-making. Age-related differences in forecasting accuracy are documented, but the underlying cognitive mechanisms, such as affective working memory (AWM), remain unclear. This study examined whether AWM capacity moderates age differences in affective forecasting accuracy. Methods: We recruited younger and older adults to complete an affective forecasting task. Participants forecasted their emotional responses to positive and negative events based on verbal descriptions, and reported their actual emotions 1 week later upon viewing related images. AWM was assessed using an affect maintenance task. We employed linear mixed models (LMMs) with random intercepts for participants to account for repeated measures (forecast and experience), examining the effects of age group, event valence, and AWM on forecasting accuracy (bias score). Cluster-bootstrap confidence intervals (1,000 resamples) were computed for simple effects to obtain robust interval estimates. Results: Both age groups showed significant affective forecasting bias, but the pattern differed: older adults underestimated future positive emotions, whereas younger adults overestimated them. As predicted, AWM capacity was lower in older adults. However, contrary to our hypothesis, AWM did not significantly moderate the relationship between age and forecasting accuracy. The observed age differences in bias direction were not explained by variations in AWM. Conclusions: The findings confirm that age-related positivity effects manifest differently in affective forecasting, leading to divergent bias patterns. Importantly, the AWM decline in aging does not directly account for these differences in forecasting accuracy. This suggests that other cognitive or motivational factors may be more central. The results highlight the need to look beyond single-mechanism explanations when designing interventions to improve emotional prediction and decision-making in later life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.