Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:46:48.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Above and beyond the content: Feelings influence mental simulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2020

Kellen Mrkva Open the ORCID record for Kellen Mrkva [Opens in a new window] ,
Luca Cian Open the ORCID record for Luca Cian [Opens in a new window]  and
Leaf Van Boven Open the ORCID record for Leaf Van Boven [Opens in a new window]
Kellen Mrkva
Affiliation:
Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, NY10027 [email protected] www.kellenmrkva.wordpress.com
Luca Cian
Affiliation:
Darden School of Business, University of Virginia,Charlottesville, VA, 22903 [email protected] https://www.darden.virginia.edu/faculty-research/directory/luca-cian
Leaf Van Boven
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO80305. [email protected] https://sites.google.com/colorado.edu/leafvanboven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gilead et al. present a rich account of abstraction. Though the account describes several elements which influence mental representation, it is worth also delineating how feelings, such as fluency and emotion, influence mental simulation. Additionally, though past experience can sometimes make simulations more accurate and worthwhile (as Gilead et al. suggest), many systematic prediction errors persist despite substantial experience.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e139
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, A. L. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009) Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review 13(3):219–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4):577–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blalock, G., Kadiyali, V. & Simon, D. H. (2009) Driving fatalities after 9/11: A hidden cost of terrorism. Applied Economics 41(14):1717–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C. & Wölk, M. (1996) Mood and the use of scripts: Does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(4):665–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buehler, R. & Griffin, D. (2003) Planning, personality, and prediction: The role of future focus in optimistic time predictions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 92(1–2):80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, R., Griffin, D. & Ross, M. (1994) Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3):366–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehler, R., Griffin, D. W. & Ross, M. (2002) The triumph of hope over experience: Exploring the planning fallacy. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W. & Kahneman, D.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cian, L. (2017) Verticality and conceptual metaphors: A systematic review. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2(4):444–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. P., Wansink, B., Kim, J. & Park, S. B. (2014) Better moods for better eating?: How mood influences food choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology 24(3):320–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, D. & Buehler, R. (2005) Biases and fallacies, memories and predictions: Comment on Roy, Christenfeld, and McKenzie (2005). Psychological Bulletin 131(5):757–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Lovallo, D. (1993) Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science 39(1):17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982) The simulation heuristic. In: Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, ed. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A., pp. 201–208. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labroo, A. A. & Patrick, V. M. (2009) Providing a moment of respite: Why a positive mood helps seeing the big picture. Journal of Consumer Research 35(5):800–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrkva, K., Travers, M. & Van Boven, L. (2018) Simulational fluency reduces feelings of psychological distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 147(3):354–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mrkva, K. & Van Boven, L. (2017) Attentional accounting: Voluntary spatial attention increases budget category prioritization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146(9):1296–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peetz, J. & Buehler, R. (2009) Is there a budget fallacy? The role of savings goals in the prediction of personal spending. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35(12):1579–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayette, M. A., Loewenstein, G., Griffin, K. M. & Black, J. J. (2008) Exploring the cold-to-hot empathy gap in smokers. Psychological Science 19(9):926–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, N. (2001) Feelings as information: Implications for affective influences on information processing. In: Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook, ed. Martin, L. & Clore, G., pp. 159–76. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H. & Simons, A. (1991) Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(2):195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N. & Clore, G. L. (1996) Feelings and phenomenal experiences. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 2:385–407.Google Scholar
Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F. & Reynolds, K. D. (1985) Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11(1):118–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2003) Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26(2–3):121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szpunar, K. K. & Schacter, D. L. (2013) Get real: Effects of repeated simulation and emotion on the perceived plausibility of future experiences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142(2):323–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Boven, L., Kane, J., McGraw, A. P. & Dale, J. (2010) Feeling close: Emotional intensity reduces perceived psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(6):872–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Boven, L. & Loewenstein, G. (2003) Social projection of transient drive states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(9):1159–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Boven, L., Loewenstein, G., Dunning, D. & Nordgren, L. F. (2013) Changing places: A dual judgment model of empathy gaps in emotional perspective taking. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 48, pp. 117–71. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Kerckhove, A., Geuens, M. & Vermeir, I. (2014) The floor is nearer than the sky: How looking up or down affects construal level. Journal of Consumer Research 41(6):1358–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G. (1996) Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65(3):272–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T. & Rabin, M. (2003) Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4):1209–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar