Wyer, 1993; Schwarz, Bless, & Bohner, 1991).However, recent research has revealed the impor-tance of examining how discrete emotions influ-ence human cognition, showing that same-valenceemotions (e.g., anger and fear) impact JDM out-comesindifferentways(DeSteno,Petty,Wegener,& Rucker, 2000; Garg, Inman, & Mittal, 2005;Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Raghunathan & Trope,2002). To date, narrative reviews of the emotions anddecision-making literature (Lerner & Tiedens,2006; Pham, 2007) have identified some topics inneed of additional study, but in general haveprovided a limited synthesis of overall findings. Inparticular, these reviews tend to focus on only asmall subset of discrete emotions and thus do notintegrate the variety of JDM studies conductedusing discrete emotions (e.g., economic decision-making, persuasion, likelihood judgements, etc.). The primary purpose of this study was to review the research examining the influence of discreteemotions on JDM outcomes using a meta-analytic approach. It should be noted, however,that due to the range of empirical research andadvancements in theory development in this areathe literature includes a variety of cognitiveoutcomes (e.g., endowment effect, risk judge-ments, choice to buy a product, etc.) as well as a wide range of hypotheses attempting to explainthe effects of discrete emotions on JDM (e.g.,cognitive appraisals of dimensions of emotion,depth of processing, activation of active andpassive responses, etc.). This array of outcomesand hypotheses makes it difficult to establish anormative method for assigning positive ornegative values to the effect sizes. Thus, thecurrent meta-analysis uses the absolute values of the effect sizes coded from the eligible studies. While this method limits some of the conclusionsthat can be drawn from the results of the meta-analysis (i.e., positive or negative effects of specific emotions), it still provides a synthesis of the magnitude of effect that discrete emotionshave on JDM and has implications for theoreticaland methodological considerations in future re-search. In addition, research studies investigatingemotions have adopted different methods of manipulation, measurement, and evaluation of their effects on JDM. These methodologicalfactors may play a role in the effects seen across various studies. Therefore, the secondary purposeof this study was to examine the influence of potential moderator variables.
Emotions and cognition
Early circumplex models of emotion (Plutchik,1991; Russell, 1980; Watson & Tellegen, 1985) viewed emotional experience as being comprisedof arousal and valence. This conceptual represen-tation was used as a framework for studyingrelationships of emotions to cognitive and beha- vioural outcomes. However, discrepancies in find-ings began to emerge for cognitive outcomes suchas JDM, pointing to the need for a more fine-grained approach to describing and accounting fordifferences seen within these dimensions. Re-searchers have begun to focus on contrastingdifferent discrete emotions (e.g., fear and happi-ness) in an attempt to better understand theirinfluence on cognitive outcomes.
Discrete emotions are consid-ered to be short-lived, intense phenomena thatusually have clear cognitive content that isaccessible to the person experiencing the emotion(Clore et al., 1994). In contrast to affect, discreteemotions are specific feeling states that arise from‘‘stimulus events’’, which refers to both events thathappen and to prevailing situations (Frijda, 1986). The events or situations have attributes thatuniquely trigger the experience of specific emo-tions while the emotions themselves have distinctaction tendencies or behavioural outputs. It is thisemphasis on the cognitive aspects of the experi-ence and expression of discrete emotions thatmakes them particularly relevant to more cogni-tively oriented outcomes.Much of the research conducted on discreteemotions has focused on contrasting anger andfear, noting that their patterns of appraisaltendencies are opposite from one another onseveral dimensions and therefore each will impact
ANGIE ET AL.
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2011, 25 (8)
D o w n l o a d e d b y [ 9 4 . 6 7 . 9 9 . 2 3 4 ] a t 1 1 : 2 1 2 2 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 2