Positive mood effects on delay discounting.

Hirsh, Jacob B.; Guindon, Alex; Morisano, Dominique; Peterson, Rolf A.

doi:10.1037/a0019466

Cited by 90 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This notion is consistent with work suggesting that affect and emotion play an important role in intertemporal choice (DeSteno, 2009;Hirsh, Guindon, Morisano, & Peterson, 2010;Loewenstein, 1996), and in (mis)predicting the preferences and emotions of others (Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003). However, it may also be that when honesty is perceived to result in future benefits for a target that far outweigh the benefits of lying, compassion could lead individuals to be more honest.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

Lupoli

Jampol

Oveis

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosocial lies, or lies intended to benefit others, are ubiquitous behaviors that have important social and economic consequences. Though emotions play a central role in many forms of prosocial behavior, no work has investigated how emotions influence behavior when one has the opportunity to tell a prosocial lie-a situation that presents a conflict between two prosocial ethics: lying to prevent harm to another, and honesty, which might also provide benefits to the target of the lie. Here, we examine whether the emotion of compassion influences prosocial lying, and find that compassion causally increases and positively predicts prosocial lying. In Studies 1 and 2, participants evaluated a poorly written essay and provided feedback to the essay writer. Experimentally induced compassion felt towards the essay writer (Study 1) and individual differences in trait compassion (Study 2) were positively associated with inflated feedback to the essay writer. In both of these studies, the relationship between compassion and prosocial lying was partially mediated by an enhanced desire to prevent emotional harm. In Study 3, we found moderation such that experimentally induced compassion increased lies that resulted in financial gains for a charity, but not lies that produced financial gains for the self. This research illuminates the emotional underpinnings of the common yet morally complex behavior of prosocial lying, and builds on work highlighting the potentially harmful effects of compassionan emotion typically seen as socially beneficial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

Lupoli

Jampol

Oveis

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One may therefore expect that in the context of altruistic punishment, positive emotions play an important role in initiating actions to restore violated fairness norms. Alternatively, it could be that positive affect fosters deviations from economical rational choices, as suggested by the research of Hirsh, Guindon, Morisano, and Peterson (2010), who showed a positive association between positive affectivity and impulsive responses, specifically with impulsive, reward-driven behavior in extraverts. In sum, these findings substantiate the importance of impulsive, emotional processes besides cognitive processes of social norm enforcement in altruistic punishment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interplay between feedback-related negativity and individual differences in altruistic punishment: An EEG study

Mothes

Enge

Strobel

2015

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, the interplay betwexen neurophysiological and individual difference factors in altruistic punishment has been little understood. To examine this issue, 45 individuals participated in a Dictator Game with punishment option while the feedback-related negativity (FRN) was derived from the electroencephalogram (EEG). Unlike previous EEG studies on the Dictator Game, we introduced a third party condition to study the effect of fairness norm violations in addition to employing a first person perspective. For the first time, we also examined the role of individual differences, specifically fairness concerns, positive/negative affectivity, and altruism/ empathy as well as recipients' financial situation during altruistic punishment. The main results show that FRN amplitudes were more pronounced for unfair than for fair assignments in both the first person and third party perspectives. These findings suggest that FRN amplitudes are sensitive to fairness norm violations and play a crucial role in the recipients' evaluation of dictator assignments. With respect to individual difference factors, recipients' current financial situation affected the FRN fairness effect in the first person perspective, indicating that when being directly affected by the assignments, more affluent participants experienced stronger violations of expectations in altruistic punishment decisions. Regarding individual differences in trait empathy, in the third party condition FRN amplitudes were more pronounced for those who scored lower in empathy. This may suggest empathy as another motive in third party punishment. Independent of the perspective taken, higher positive affect was associated with more punishment behavior, suggesting that positive emotions may play an important role in restoring violated fairness norms.

show abstract

“…The tendency towards impulsive choice varies between individuals (e.g., Kirby & Marakovic, 1996;Shamosh & Gray, 2008). It is stronger in certain personality types (e.g., Hirsh, et al, 2010) and is associated with certain psychopathologies (e.g., Bobova, et al, 2009). Patients with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are more impulsive in this sense (Barkley et al, 2001), as are patients with schizophrenia (Heerey, et al, 2007); cocaine-addicts (Kirby & Petry, 2004), pathological gamblers (Dixon, et al, 2003), smokers (Businelle, et al, 2010) and alcoholics (Mitchell, et al, 2005;Petry, 2001); while the opposite seems to be the case for individuals with higher levels of intelligence (Shamosh & Gray, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%