Hedonic Evaluation over Short and Long Retention Intervals: The Mechanism of the Peak–End Rule

Geng, Xin; Chen, Ziguang; Lam, W.L.; Zheng, Qiang

doi:10.1002/bdm.1755

Cited by 70 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, when people remember how they felt in the past, focusing on salient but unrepresentative moments, such as the peak and end of an experience, leads people to overestimate their average or overall emotional response [17,18].…”

Section: Similar Sources and Patterns Of Bias When Predicting And Remmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the features of events that come to mind when people are predicting or remembering emotion are also likely to be salient when people are experiencing the peak intensity of emotion, promoting accuracy. In addition, greater accuracy in remembering the peak intensity than the duration of past emotional episodes [17] provides a better basis for predicting the intensity of future emotion. Finally, predictions and memories about emotional intensity draw on semantic knowledge about the importance of events for personal goals.…”

Section: Similar Sources and Patterns Of Bias When Predicting And Remmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bias in predicted and remembered emotion

Levine

Lench

Karnaze

et al. 2018

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting and remembering emotion both rely on the episodic memory system which is constructive and subject to bias. In keeping with the common cognitive processes underlying prospection and retrospection, people show similar strengths and weaknesses when they predict how they will feel in the future and remember how they felt in the past. Recent findings reveal that people predict and remember the intensity of emotion more accurately than their overall or general emotional response, and whether emotion is over-or underestimated depends on how people's attention to, and appraisals about, events change over time. People's phenomenological experience differs markedly when they are predicting versus remembering emotion, however.Phenomenological cues, such as intensity and autonoetic experience, make predicted emotion a more compelling guide for decisions, even when inaccurate. Highlights:• The episodic memory system supports predicting and remembering emotional experience • Similar patterns of accuracy and bias characterize predicted and remembered emotion • Intensity is represented more accurately than overall emotional experience • The direction of bias depends on how attention and event appraisals shift over time • Phenomenological experience differs markedly for predicted and remembered emotion

show abstract

Section: Similar Sources and Patterns Of Bias When Predicting And Remmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Similar Sources and Patterns Of Bias When Predicting And Remmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias in predicted and remembered emotion

Levine

Lench

Karnaze

et al. 2018

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent findings suggest that when retention intervals extend 3-7 weeks also semantic elements are used to reconstruct hedonic evaluations of past episodes [67].…”

Section: Understanding Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy and bias in retrospective symptom reporting

Bergh

Walentynowicz

2016

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current Opinion in Psychiatry, in press 2 Purpose of reviewSelf-reported bodily symptoms are of primary importance in health care and in health-related research. Typically they are assessed in clinical interviews or by means of traditional questionnaire formats that require the respondent to provide retrospective symptom estimates rated along intuitive frequency and/or intensity standards and aggregated across varying or unspecified time windows. Recent findingsRetrospective symptom assessments are often biased when compared to (averaged) momentary assessments of symptoms. A variety of factors and conditions have been identified to influence the amount of bias in symptom reporting. Recent research has focused on the underlying mechanisms for the discrepancy between memory and experience. It is suggested that different types of questions and formats assess different types of information that each may be relevant for other purposes.Knowledge of these underlying mechanisms also provides a relevant framework to better understand individual differences in symptom reporting, including somatoform and somatic symptom disorder. SummaryAccuracy of self-reported bodily symptoms is important for the clinician and the researcher. Understanding the mechanisms underlying bias may be provide an interesting window to understand how symptom episodes are processed, encoded and consolidated in memory and provide clues to modify symptom experiences.

show abstract

“…• Individuals delay their evaluation of an event by a month or so (Geng et al, 2013) The just world fallacy • People experience a positive mood (Goldenberg & Forgas, 2012); specifically, when individuals experience a positive mood, they are not as likely to blame victims Spotlight effect • Individuals do not feel like they will be evaluated, or at least not harshly, by anyone else (Brown & Stopa, 2007) meaning. Indeed, they skew their attention, memory, or appraisals to evoke thoughts that foster meaning .…”

Section: Peak End Rulementioning

confidence: 99%

Which Cognitive Biases can Exacerbate our Workload?

Moss

Wilson

Davis

2016

Australasian Journal of Organisational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the advent of technologies that enhance productivity, the workload of many individuals, including psychologists, remains onerous, provoking burnout and similar complications. Although the circumstances that mitigate or exacerbate the effects of workload have been studied extensively, the antecedents of these demands have not been established definitively. Without this insight, managers cannot be sure of which practices are likely to contain the workload of individuals. To resolve this shortfall, we first pose the possibility that many cognitive biases, heuristics, and illusions may, at least partly, explain elevated levels of workload. Specifically, we demonstrate that 14 established biases, such as the restraint bias and IKEA effect, are likely to prolong work hours and increase the demands on individuals. For example, according to research on the restraint bias, individuals tend to inflate their capacity to inhibit their temptations and, therefore, may overestimate their ability to work extensive hours. Second, we show that all these biases can be divided into four constellations-self-enhancement, stable worldviews, need for closure, and just world-each of which tends to dissipate whenever people experience a sense of meaning in their lives. These observations, therefore, imply that attempts to foster meaning may contain the workload of workers.

show abstract

Hedonic Evaluation over Short and Long Retention Intervals: The Mechanism of the Peak–End Rule

Cited by 70 publications

References 33 publications

Bias in predicted and remembered emotion

Bias in predicted and remembered emotion

Accuracy and bias in retrospective symptom reporting

Which Cognitive Biases can Exacerbate our Workload?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About