Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:22:46.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Base-rate respect meets affect neglect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2007

Paul Whitney ,
John M. Hinson  and
Allison L. Matthews
Paul Whitney
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4820. [email protected]@[email protected]
John M. Hinson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4820. [email protected]@[email protected]
Allison L. Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4820. [email protected]@[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While improving the theoretical account of base-rate neglect, Barbey & Sloman's (B&S's) target article suffers from affect neglect by failing to consider the fundamental role of emotional processes in “real world” decisions. We illustrate how affective influences are fundamental to decision making, and discuss how the dual process model can be a useful framework for understanding hot and cold cognition in reasoning.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 285 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Blanchette, I. (2006) The effect of emotion on interpretation and logic in a conditional reasoning task. Memory and Cognition 34:1112–25.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1994) Descartes' error: Emotion, reasoning, and the human brain. G. P. Putnam.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1994) Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49:709–24.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2001) Affective influence on social information processing. In: Handbook of affect and social cognition, ed. Forgas, J. P., pp. 163–85. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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 13:1–17.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinson, J. M., Whitney, P., Holben, H. & Wirick, A. K. (2006) Affective biasing of choices in gambling task decision making. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 6:190–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–91.Google Scholar
Lee, D. (2006) Neural basis of quasi-rational decision making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16:191–98.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. (2005) Hot-cold empathy gaps in medical decision making. Health Psychology 24:S49–S56.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127:267–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, E. & Slovic, P. (2000) The springs of action: Affective and analytic information processing in choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26:1465–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M. & Cohen, J. D. (2006) Neuroeconomics: Cross currents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:108–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24:311–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L. & MacGregor, D. G. (2005) Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology 24:S35–S40.Google Scholar