Music, Pandas, and Muggers: On the Affective Psychology of Value.

Abstract

This research investigated the relationship between the magnitude or scope of a stimulus and its subjective value by contrasting 2 psychological processes that may be used to construct preferences: valuation by feeling and valuation by calculation. The results show that when people rely on feeling, they are sensitive to the presence or absence of a stimulus (i.e., the difference between 0 and some scope) but are largely insensitive to further variations of scope. In contrast, when people rely on calculation, they reveal relatively more constant sensitivity to scope. Thus, value is nearly a step function of scope when feeling predominates and is closer to a linear function when calculation predominates. These findings may allow for a novel interpretation of why most real-world value functions are concave and how the processes responsible for nonlinearity of value may also contribute to nonlinear probability weighting.

Thinking, feeling, and giving: The effects of scope and valuation on consumer donations

“…The current research replicates and extends the work of Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) in two studies. Study 1 replicates scope insensitivity effects on donation behavior by comparing differences in consumers primed to make valuations by feelings with those primed to make valuations by calculation.…”

“…For instance, Desvousges et al (1993) found no differences between participant donations to help save 2000, 20,000, or 200,000 birds. Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) demonstrated that scope is neglected when valuations are made based on feelings and emotion, whereas valuations based on calculation lead to greater scope sensitivity. This effect is based on the affective focus of the decision maker (Hsee & Rottenstreich, 2004), where the degree to which an individual attends to affective information impacts whether scope or emotion drives donation behavior.…”

“…Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) demonstrated that scope is neglected when valuations are made based on feelings and emotion, whereas valuations based on calculation lead to greater scope sensitivity. This effect is based on the affective focus of the decision maker (Hsee & Rottenstreich, 2004), where the degree to which an individual attends to affective information impacts whether scope or emotion drives donation behavior. To extend this explanation of scope insensitivity, we examine differences in how individuals process emotional information.…”

Affective response to a lottery prize moderates processing of payoffs and probabilities: An eye-tracking study

“…Rottenstreich and Hsee (2001) documented a larger insensitivity to changes in the probability scale for affect-rich outcomes (a $500 coupon that could be redeemed toward expenses associated with holidays in Europe) than for affect-poor outcomes (a $500 coupon that could be used toward tuition payments at the university). A similar effect (i.e., a larger insensitivity to changes in numerical features of risky prospects) emerges when the magnitude of a stimulus (e.g., monetary value) is evaluated by feelings rather than by calculation (Hsee & Rottenstreich, 2004). In the same vein, it has recently been shown that people pay less attention to probability information in affectrich than affect-poor decision problems what results in suboptimal choices (Pachur & Galesic, 2013).…”

The Z-Effect: Why Good Is Good, but Better Is Better

“…Specifically, they show that depending on the question asked, experimental groups either required payment or were willing to pay in order to listen to a professor with little oratory or performance skill read poetry aloud. This idea can also be seen when Hsee and Rottenstreich (2004) asked people how much they would pay for CDs. By priming study participants (through a questionnaire) to generate a valuation through either calculation or feeling, they were able to show significantly different value functions for sets of Madonna CDs of varying sizes.…”