Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice

TLDR

Most theories of affective influences on judgement and choice rely on valence, yet they do not address whether distinct emotions of the same valence differ in their effects on judgement. This article proposes an emotion‑specific model and tests it by comparing anger and fear, both negative, on risk perception. The authors define each emotion by its appraisal‑based perception tendency and evaluate this by contrasting anger and fear in a risk‑perception study. Fearful participants judged future events more pessimistically, whereas angry participants were more optimistic, confirming the appraisal‑tendency hypothesis.

Abstract

Abstract Most theories of affective influences on judgement and choice take a valence-based approach, contrasting the effects of positive versus negative feeling states. These approaches have not specified if and when distinct emotions of the same valence have different effects on judgement. In this article, we propose a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. We posit that each emotion is defined by a tendency to perceive new events and objects in ways that are consistent with the original cognitive-appraisal dimensions of the emotion. To pit the valence and appraisal-tendency approaches against one another, we present a study that addresses whether two emotions of the same valence but differing appraisals—anger and fear—relate in different ways to risk perception. Consistent with the appraisal-tendency hypothesis, fearful people made pessimistic judgements of future events whereas angry people made optimistic judgements. In the Discussion we expand the proposed model and review evidence supporting two social moderators of appraisal-tendency processes.