The Influence of Mood on the Search for Supporting Versus Conflicting Information: Dissonance Reduction as a Means of Mood Regulation?

Abstract

Focusing on similarities between the mood regulation approach and dissonance theory, this article addresses the interplay between dissonance and mood by examining how individuals search for information after making a decision while under the influence of positive versus negative mood. Study 1 suggested that negative mood increased the preference for consonant over dissonant information after decisions, whereas positive mood led to a more balanced information search. In Study 2, participants in negative mood rated consonant information as more pleasant and dissonant information as more annoying than participants in positive mood. In addition, the results suggested that mood regulation processes took place. In Study 3, the findings from Study 1 were replicated with a paradigm in which higher stakes were involved.

Connectionism Strategy for Industrial Accident-Oriented Emergency Decision-Making: A Simulation Study Based on PCS Model

“…(1) The influence of negative emotion of policymakers on decision time Simulation results show that, the higher the policymakers' negative emotion, the shorter the decision time they need to deal with the industrial accident, which is consistent with the conclusion of references [11] and [27]. In addition to the motivation to reduce policymakers' cognitive dissonance and improve policymakers' emotion [28], another possible reason is that, owing to the relative decrease of cognitive resources of policymakers with negative emotions as well as the decline of their cognitive abilities, policymakers can't accurately analyse the validity of each cue and their influences on schemes, so they tend to use connectionism strategy to deal with the coal mining accident, which can also more easily make policymakers form the attitude to agree with the dominant scheme and lead to a shorter decision time.…”

“…The other is the studies on influential factors of connectionism strategy. First of all, with regard to policymakers' emotion, some studies found that, compared with the positive emotions, policymakers with negative emotions tended to show more confirmatory biases in order to reduce cognitive dissonance when they are searching cues [11]. At the same time, negative emotions can reinforce the degree of coherence shift, and cues that are beneficial to maintain emotion are considered more important [12].…”

“…While the inconsistency and conflict among nodes in the task network can further increase negative emotions via cognitive dissonance. To avoid this situation, policymakers will frequently use connectionism strategy for emergency decision-making [11]. (2) Concern of policymakers Owing to the diversity of policymakers' cognitive style and the presentation mode of decision-making tasks, the policymakers' selections that they concentrate more on disposal schemes or cues show different trends [23].…”

Selective exposure and decision framing: The impact of gain and loss framing on confirmatory information search after decisions

“…With regard to decision making, this phenomenon has been consistently shown for both individual (Fischer, Jonas, Frey, & Schulz-Hardt, 2005;Frey, 1986;Jonas et al, 2001;Jonas & Frey, 2003;Jonas, Graupmann & Frey, 2006), and group decision making (Schulz-Hardt, Frey, Lüthgens, & Moscovici, 2000;Schulz-Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002), whereas the most important practical relevance lies in the fact that this tendency can severely jeopardize decision quality (Janis, 1982;Kray & Galinski, 2003). The present research investigates whether this tendency for confirmatory information search is differently affected by gain-vs. loss-framed decision problems.…”

“…Yet, one shortcoming of previous research on information search is that people have predominantly decided about gains or positively framed decision alternatives (e.g. which one of several positively described books or holiday trips they would prefer; e.g., Frey, 1981;Jonas & Frey, 2003;Jonas, Graupmann, & Frey, 2006). However, in real life decisionmaking, the focus often lies on risks and drawbacks of specific decision alternatives.…”