Patients respond more positively to physicians who focus on their ideal affect.

Abstract

Previous findings suggest that patients choose physicians whose affective focus matches how they ideally want to feel (Sims et al., 2014). For instance, the more people wanted to feel excitement, the more likely they were to hypothetically choose a new physician who promoted excitement. What remains unknown is whether this match shapes how patients actually respond to physicians after being assigned to them (i.e., whether they adhere to physicians’ recommendations more and evaluate physicians more positively). To this end, community adults reported their global ideal affect and actual affect (how they ideally want to feel and actually feel during a typical week, respectively), and were randomly assigned to receive health recommendations from either a physician who expressed and promoted high arousal positive states (HAP) (e.g., excitement), or one who expressed and promoted low arousal positive states (LAP) (e.g., calm). For the next five days, participants reported their daily adherence to the recommendations and their daily ideal and actual affect. At the end of the week, participants evaluated their physician. As predicted, the more participants wanted to feel HAP, the more they adhered to the “HAP-focused” physician’s recommendations, and the more participants wanted to feel LAP, the more they adhered to the “LAP-focused” physician’s recommendations. Participants also evaluated their physician more positively when his affective focus matched their ideal affect. Neither global nor daily actual affect systematically predicted how patients responded to their physicians. These findings suggest that patients respond better to physicians whose affective focus matches their ideal affect.

Ideal affect in daily life: implications for affective experience, health, and social behavior

“…Second, they suggest that certain ideals (i.e., extreme happiness) may be detrimental to one’s health. In other research, we have also demonstrated how people’s ideal affect shapes their preferences for and evaluations of physicians, their adherence to physicians’ recommendations, and even their recall of physicians’ recommendations [22, 46, 47]. This work suggests that clinicians should also consider how patients’ ideal affect may influence how patients respond to them.…”

“…As mentioned above, in clinical settings, we have found that the more people value excited states, the more likely they are to choose but also to adhere to the recommendations of a physician who wants to help patients lead “dynamic” vs. “relaxed” lifestyles [47]. Indeed, compared to European Americans, Asian Americans respond less favorably to excitement vs. calm focused physicians: they are not only less likely to choose them, but also less likely to recall their recommendations and evaluate them positively [22].…”

The grass is not as green as you think: Affect evaluation in people with internalizing disorders

“…Consistent with Tsai et al, we found that should affect was unique from ideal affect. Although future research should examine the relation between state should affect and state ideal affect, we are confident in our findings; Sims and Tsai (2015) found positive associations between daily and trait ideal PA. Further, the CTL group differed from the clinical groups in should but not ideal affect. Finally, approximately 70% of the variance for should PA and NA was due to within-person variance.…”

Wanting to maximize the positive and minimize the negative: Implications for mixed affective experience in American and Chinese contexts.

“…Is it right?”). Indeed, across a variety of studies, we have observed only modest correlations between reports of actual affect and ideal affect (Sims, Tsai, Koopmann-Holm, Thomas, & Goldstein, 2014; Sims & Tsai, 2014; Tsai, 2007; Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006; Tsai, Louie, Chen, & Uchida, 2007; Tsai, Miao, & Seppala, 2007; Tsai, Miao, Seppala, Fung, & Yeung, 2007), and structural equation modeling has revealed that actual affect and ideal affect are distinct constructs (Tsai, et al, 2006; Koopmann-Holm et al, 2014). …”

“…AVT also posits that while temperamental factors shape both ideal and actual affect, temperamental factors shape actual affect more than ideal affect (see Tsai, 2007). Across a variety of studies using different methods, we have gathered strong empirical support for these claims, and have shown that cultural differences in ideal affect produce cultural differences in consumer product preferences, conceptions of well-being, and evaluations of people (Sims & Tsai, 2014; Sims et al, 2014; Tsai, 2007; Tsai et al, 2006; Tsai, Louie, et al, 2007; Tsai, Miao, & Seppala, 2007; Tsai, Miao, Seppala, et al, 2007; Tsai, Chim, & Sims, in press). …”