See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232450899

Miswanting: Some problems in the forecasting of future affective states.

Article · October 2012

CITATIONS READS

119 1,599

2 authors, including:

Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
133 PUBLICATIONS   25,384 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Allocator's Illusion View project

The Novelty Penalty View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy D. Wilson on 07 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2000). Miswanting: Some
problems in the forecasting of future emotional states. In J.
,'::-..,., .....
Forgas (Ed.), Thinking and feeling: The role of affect in social Miswanting 179
cognition (pp. 178-197). Cambridge: Cambridge University - . ':,

cheeseburgers alwClYs look and smelt ~nd despite thllt fClct, we have
Press.
8~;"~MJswanting absolutely no interest in eating it. We are perplexed 1Ulq. embarrass~d
by such ~st~kes and can only off~r cun.ning explanations stid~ as, {'l·
'./:~;:~'}.~ !:~~~. '~.J' . .
Sij,l,ljf'prQblemsinthe Forecasting of Future guess I dldn t really want a cheesel;mrger after all." Diningcornpan~ .'
ions often consider su~h accounts inadequate. "If you didn't want th@' ,
Affedive States damned thing, then why did you get it?" they may ask, at which poinht~ii4',
DANlf:L T. GILBERT AND TIMOTHY, D. WILSON we are usually forced to admit the truth, which isthat we just do not;:"
know. We only know thClt it looks exactly like what we said we
wanted, we are not going to eat it, and the waiter, is not amused.
Althoug}:t we tend to think of unhappiness as so~~t~g th~t hap-
pens t6 us when we do nbt get what we want, much ~appiness is
~? . .
,l". ..' > . ' . actually of the cheeseburger variety arid has less to do with not getting: .
w.sml4 not b~ bett~r if things hl!ppened to mell just as they 'Vant,"
what we want, and more td q<;> with not wanting whett we lil<e. When.
Heraclitus, Fragments (500 B.C.)
wanting and liking are uncoordinated in this way w~,m~y§g.y that a
Pll
person has rni8~a~ted. The word sounds odq aJ first, t 'jf,¥i&nting'js
. llldeed a predlction ·of liking, then it, like any prElc.U<;:fiqn, C<m l>¢
lntrod~ction wrong. When the things we want to happen do nRtimPJoVI;!Qwt:\ .'
Li~ and want CU'~ aniorig the first things children leam to say, and h~ppiness, and when the t~gs we want not to hapR~nJg,Bj'it &e~:l
once they learn to say them, they never stop. Lildng has to do with faIT to say that we have wanted badly. Why shoulctthishappen fP'!
. how a thing makes us feel, and wanting is, simply enough, a predic- people as clever and handsome as us? .. '
tion of liking. W4en we say, (II like this douglml.lt;" we are letting
ofuers,!<now that the qoughnut currently ~qer \Consumption istnak- The fundamentals of Miswanting
ing l.ls feel a bit better than before. When we say, ~J want a dough-
nut/' we are making an abbreviated statement whose ext~qed trans- .. In a perfect world, wanting would cause trying, tryingWopld cau!>e .
lation is something like, "Right now I'm not feeling quite as gOOq as I getting, getting would cause liking, and this chapter WQilld~~ tniss 4tg:
mlgNJ'el and I think fried dough will fix that." Statements about. all the words. Ours is apparently not sl.wh a place. How is it possi1~l~
w~tIDg',tend to be statements about those things tha~ We believe will to get what we want and yet not like what we get?.AJl~~!1t three
inf!'i.j~nc~pur sern;e pf well-being, satisfaction, llaPpit)ess,f\nq content- problems bedevil our attempts to want well. . , . ,
,
.mi' ' ,... ~nce, wh~ we !>l'!Y we want something; we e'lre more Or less
p .. ~,.,. ',g'that we wUllij<e it when we get it, Imaginins the Wrong Event
'.' t~1fF~;pipntises are easier to make than .tp l.<eep(anqti()met~e!> we
.!.-'"

get, .what we say WI! want and feel entIrely u.nl1appyabout It,We 1'h1!' iundij.me~tal problem,of course, is that the events we imagin~
ord~r' 4 cheesepurger only to find that it looks anq smells precisely as wheq we are In the midst of a really good want are not preCisely
events we experience when. we are at the tail end of a really .
~~~,$~~r). . .
.' .,.'. TIi~i~f~l?~f this chapter ~as supported ~Y rese~ch grant R?1-Mli56075. from the pointing g~t. For instance, most of us are skeptical when we
; ",;~r~:tN .. Meaf t1~tf!~ liealth ~q paruel. T. Gi1b~r.t ,!lIlA ~lmothy ?, Willion. We movie stars Q.escdbe how relentless aQ.oration can be a source of
. Y~~Jg~~§ f9!; his WS~ghtful Cornmeqts 011 im e~lier Y!lr~lOnpf this chapter, and fering, or when terminally ill'patients insist that a dreaded disease has '.
':Ciii;'" prl1ln tl$ yp!tgj1e fOr helpful discussiop.s of these issues.
given their lives deeper meaning. We feel certain that ~e wou14~~
·,J·"';:"'\:~·D '" ,~~e~i~~~~!~~d 'ti:~e~~:t:~i:!j::::J~t~b~'d~~b:;l' delighted in the first instance and devastated ill the second because'
.021q§i~7.ml)il:dtg@wjh,harvar4:edu.· . 'most of us have no ide~ what stardom or terminal i,llnel'l£? . .'
<!!>" . ~,i'"
:: :
 180 D. T. Gilbert and T. D. Wilson
entail. When we thinl< of "adoring fans/' we tend to envision a cheer-
mg 'throng of admirers calling us bacl< for an encore perfonnance
rath~r than a slightly demented autograph hOl.mcl peepmg through
pur pedroom window at midnight. When we th.in¥ of "tertninal ill-
ness," we tend to envision ourselves waating a~ay in a hospital bed,
connected to machines by plugs and tubes, rather than planting flow-
er~in the hospice garden, stlrrounded by those we love. Terminal
illness -is not an event, but a 'class of events, Mel each, member of the
cl~~'s~olds in a different way. How ffitlch We Uke an event depends
mightily on the details of its unfolding. When the imagined cheese-
burger, (a half-pound of prime aged beef), i~ not the experienced
ch~es~burger (three ounces of fl.j.bbery soy)! that
. " . , •. ollr.wqnting and Q\-l:r !iNng will be poorly'
'Given how vlirted '1l' ~lass of events can Per.
ptUaently to refrain from directing their. . "
. clQr,!rtknPw if I want a cheeseburger") and clin~~f toward
'\Xpl}ttiSiG!a:rr well-:understood members of theaa~~ ({'!imVever, I know
,.101. r ;it"i\:N~t..that P1eeseburger"). Researclll5l1g&e~f~; tnlH people a:re
~ .. :
..'.
';'..
,·n.~ ·:·:~Y!l, s.o·pmclent and that when askeel tQJna:l<e preclictions
Y.":. i"'ali~&i{fU,fure ~venta{ they tend to imagine a particlllan:!vent while
·.>r ', ' rri~g Uttle provillion for the possibility that the parti~war event they
ar¢j-ln~gining m!!y notnecessa.rijy be the parttcuhu: event they will be
experilmcing (Dl.lrining,Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990; Griffin, D~­
nh1g, & Ross: 1990; 9#ffu). &, Ross, 1991; Lord, Lepper, & .Maclde,
1984; Robinson, Keltner, Ward, & Ross, 1995). When our spouse asks
us to attend ~/a party" on Friday night, we instantly ltnagine a partic-.
'ulat kind of party (e.g./a cocktail party in the pentholl!!e of a clown-
town hotel wi,th, w~iters in black ties car:ry41g:~UY¢r:tff!Y!! pf hor!)
ci' oe~Yres past' !I, slightly borecl harpist) cmq then ~~WnF1t~ gw f~ac:tion'
to th<lt imagined event (e.g., yawn). We gener!lily faUto\:imsider how.
many different members constitute. the class (e.g.", l,>irthd<\y parties,
orgies, Wal<efl) @d how. different om reactions WOlil.qpe to each. So
. we tell our spotlse that we would rather slcip the party, our spouse
natur~lly qrags us along anyhow, and' wE! have <l truly marvelous
time. Why? Because the, party involves· cheap beer and hula hoops
rather than classical music and seaweed cracJ.<ers. It js precisely Our
style, &rid we like what we previously did not W!mtheQ'!l1se ~e event',
w¢"experienced (and liked) was not the event w~ jffiagiIleQ. (ancl
. w~ted to avoid). ' still be surprised whe~ their desert island vacation turns out to be <l
Miswanting 181
Using the Wrong Theory
If imagining the wrong event ':Vere the sole cause of mi&w~nting, then
We would only miswant objects ancl experiences wherith~ C\.etails of
their'unfolding were unknown to us. The fact is, people often want ~.
and then fail to like - objects and experiences whose detC\ila they know
quite well. Even when we know precisely the kind of party our apouse , .
is hauling us to, pr precisely the kind of chees~bUfger this particular
reshnlrant serves, we may still be surprised to find that weertjoy it a
great deal "more or less than we had anticipah~d. For examp~e, Reaq
and Loewenstein (1995) asked subjects to plan a menu by deciding
which of several snacks they would eat when they returned to the
laboratory on each of three conseclltive Mondays (d. Simonson
Subjects tendecl to order a mixed plate that included instances of
favorite snack ("J'll have a Snickers bar on the first two ~V.J.\J.J.L~.L4V
as well as instances of their next favorite (" J\nd tortilla chipflqn "
third Monday"). Alas, when it actu!llly cam~Uime to eat the snacks,
subjects were' not so pleased on the clay. when they ,arriyecl', at 'the'
laboratory only to find' the:rp:selves faced with a snadcth,at WaS;;l
well, not their favorite. Their disappointment was per£e:cfly UII'''...,'',,,,,
standable. We should be disappointed when we do no!g~t!W9at YJ'
like mo&t, ancl the only thing that !!eems hard to und§.£stmll!lisw,
. subjects wanted something that they knew p~rfect1y w~U~Y;di4Ji.c.
. . like perfectly well? . ;':;'. '. . '...
Apparently, subjects in this studybelieved that variety isthespic¢.
of life - ~nd in'this case, they were wrong (d. I<ahneman ~ Snen!
1992). A Snickers with every meal is -indeed a. dtlll Wc;:ll>,pect for any~ ..
one, htit'a Snickers once a week is just about right. .A,s;~HpN·~mcl<ers~·
lOVefl>.'~r~ milde less happy - and not more happy:": wh~n,fu~!iwef.!k1Y ,
Snick~rs is replaced by a less desirable treat.13ecause,~\lpjl'!qts m1:hijI
study had erroneous theories about their own. needJ9fiV<l;J.Jety' •., " .
time, they miswanted tortilla chips when. they plann~g Jh~.!f' .
The moral of this ripping yarn about snijck foods if? th~tev~n
people have a perfect idea of what an event. will el1,t~U (i.e,;
chips are deep-fried corn pancakes covered with salt - periocl), ,
may still.have imperfect ideas about themselves ancl thus may milk~. '
imperfect predictions abQut ·how they will react to the event, Peopll'! Ii
who can Imagine sun, surf, sand, and daiquiris in exquisite detail may
 and T. D. Wilson
•.. . .' "..'. . " because they imagined this island and ended up on that
one; but simply because they did not realize how much they require
. dC\ily' stnicture, intellectual stimulation, or regular i..n.f4siom~ of Pop
Tarts. Highbrows fall asleep at .the ballet, pacifists find themselves
slTangely excited by a glimpse of world class .wrestling, and tough
guys in ieather jackets are occasionally caught making clucking
sounds by the duck pond. To the extent that we have incorrect theo-
ries about who we a~e, We may also have incorrect beliefs about what
we will like ..
Misinterpreting FeeUngs
If we could imagine events exactly as they were llctuaHy to unfold,
and if we had complete Md accurate knowledge of ouf r~levant tastes
and, attitudes, could. we necessarily avoid nUswcwting? Unfortunately
not, When we imagine a future event, we normally have an affective
. n:!aFtiqn to its mental representation (imagining one's spOllSe happily
. entWm~d: with the mail carrier usually illustrates this fact convfuc~
ingl~X)md we naturally take 'this &ffective reacijon tq the. mental
f!'lPr~~e.ht~tion of the~yent· as a proxy for the f1ffefijy~:rea~tion we
n#hth&ve to the event itself. If the merethotight of &mate's infidelity
. . mil.ke~ US feel slightly nCiuseous, then we have every reason to suppose
'. thf\rth~, r¢aI Hung would, end in an upchu~. Ow:' affe~tiye re&ctions
.,; . ~~FY events (ire! in a sense, experiential pr~vi('!w~pf OUf ilffec-
"":")'~ t8. #w events thein~elves, !l.nd they ffgmePfPnUnently
. £p'p.~ pfWture liking. Few of us need to consult a cook-, .
,,~{'lli~t we' shol.llda,void (lUy event involving liver ~nd
, ""'P, 'fhiifnmnY feeling right here is information ~nough (see
fo, "'F,~o95;Sl::lw{ari~Clore, 1983; Schwarz, 1990). , ' J " ; ",'
{,,¥(.J W:~tttili~s, then~.· ~r~ .p~s¢d on three in~~4i~nt~1"J11~:P~Fti~l.lI~fqe-
-:·:',t?U!l)h!.ltw~ iinagitwwhen we consi~~r!lNfut~.r~Yf!nh:pm, p¢UefEj
apout the .ways in which people like us ~ie Ul<elytqreact to./3uch
events, and the "gut reactions" we experien5~c~vliimW~,fm~gmeth('!
·event. Just as the first two of these ingreqient~'~~Kl~j!1;;~~"t9,'tm§wMt, .'
so ~oo can. the t~d. How so? ~e c~UX'ptJh~;f>!flRl~{~W~Jhqt ~e '.
feebngs we expenencewhen we lffiagme~fuffif" , t~fe not J1e c-
ess&rUyor solely cC!tised by that ,!ct of iW~gffi~d ''',nmy'feel
ep.ofIl1olisly exciteq when we contempl'lte~p~n4lli ·S@d~Y at
the circus, and thus we may drop buckets of fuPh~YPriJJbg~jqe tickets
without realizing that the good news we receiYhr~PQ4f'pl.lf aging
... :·~·t~:fi-:,-_·~:i'·,/:·~~:\~,~-.,,)~ ~-:
Miswanting . 183. .
uncle's miraculous recovery from psoriasis just moments before we
purchased our ticket has contaminat~d our affe(,::tive reaction to the
thought of dancing elephants (Wilson & Brekke, 1994). Come Sunday,
we may find ourselves bored to tears beneath the big top, wondering
why we paid good money to see a herd of clowns in a little car. Our
miswanting in this case would not have been a result of having imag-·
ined the wrong event ("Oh, l was thinkirtgof a flea, cir~us") nOl'· pf~:r';;
having had a false conception' qf ourselves ("Why did I thiiU< I likeg't< .
men in floppy shoes?"). Rather, we would havemiswantedbecause "...
when we initially thought about the circus we felt e~cited, and we
took th~t fact as information about the circus rather than)l.sinforma-
tion abollt Uncle Frank's renUssion. Feelings do nqts!!Y:Where they
came £rom, and thus it is all too easy for us to attrihRt~i!b~m to tl}~h("
wrong source. . . . . "";~.>;;;
Exper4nental demonstrations of this home truthab'gl.#iq, Pepple"
may irtistakenly believe that their lives are ewptywhen;iiLJact, their
gloomy mood is a consequence of rain (Schwarz & Clore, 1983); they .
mqy mistakenly believe that a person is attractive when,in fact, their
pounding puis~ is being caused by the swaying of a suspensi<;m bridge
(Dutton & Aron, 1974); and so on. Because we cannot alwilYs tell if . ' .
the feelings we are having as we imagine an event are Pe.ing c~4seqi'.H~··
solely by that imagining, we may use these feelings il.,$ ptqxies f(lf,!
,future liking, and hence, miswant. .
Thin,king and Feeling . <
.,
;
We ordinarily experience both thoughts and feelings wh~n w~
ine a future event, and these influence ol.lr w~ntings' tq
tents, under different circumstances, and with different,
. tiw.es, Qm ~ffective reactions to an imag~ed event
exceUent basis for w<}nting, but our cognitive reactions'
up, :nul\! p~ems to be what happened when Wilson et a1. (1993)
college swdents ~. reproduction of an . ,
'poster of ct. cat with Ii humorous caption. Before. . .
sorne ~t4dents were asked to think about wlw they liked'
each poster (ildeep thinkers") and others were not ("shallow UUUK:";'
ers").·When the experimenters phoned the students lat~r~d ",,,..,.CLl"
how much they liked their.:rew objet q'art, the deep tNnk~:rswere the. '
least satisfied. Presumably, the shallow thinl<ers useg their~ current
affective reaction as the basis for their decision anden4~q:r.~p liking .
:-~>;:~<."....
 .' I;a~\."p,':T. Gilbert ana T. D. Wilson
:\\ . . :., .
~:~ .f;~ .'
thfpp~ters they had chosen. Deep tltinkerp, on the other hand, had
some b~dly mistaken theories about their o~ aesthetk preferences
("Now that I think about it, the olive greeI1 in the ,Monet is rather
. 4f~P.~/ whereas the cat poster is bright and cheery"), and when they
.. , ",,,,, 4Jh!,!se cogmtive reactions'to 'overrUle their affective reactions,
.t ~¥jta.bly miswanted. ' more the next evening than they would th~ next morning.' N
,:,m
er q,mes( however, our cognitive reactions can provide an
"Mt'!,b~si8 for om wantings, and, our affective reactions may lead
~~,:'-liY, For ~xample, Gilbert, Gill, and Wil~on (1998) asked shop:-
p~~{at'a grocery store to write down all the items they had come to
, b~y, ~d allowed some·shopp.ers to retainthqt list. Next, they asked
smne shoppers to eat .a quarter pound of blueberry muffins before
entering the store. .As' shoppers exited the ~tore, the experimenters'
, examined the4' cash register receipts. When shoppers were deprived
of th!'!ir I:!hopping lists, those who had eaten l>lueberry rrmffins b04ght
few!'!! uuwcmted items than did those who haq not eaten any muffins.
Presumably, when these listless shoppers encountered items in the
store~' they had more positive affective reactions to th~ items when .
they were unfed (liThe marslup.allow cookies look so cleliciousl") than
they 'did when they were well-fed ("I never want to eat again") and
thus were more inclined to buy iteins that they had not intended to
buy. Shoppers who had their lists in hand, however, were unaffected
by the blueberry muffins, and bought no more unwanted items when
th~y were unfed than when they were well-Jed. These listful'shoppers
slu'ely had the same affective rea~ons as did their listless counter-·
p~nli. but because they had in hand a copy of A Theory About What I
W,1l Want in the Future (aka a grocery liSt), they were able to avoid
bel!lmg,their choices on their affective reactions and thlls they were
able.to.f:\.vQid ntiswanting.
, It seemS, then, that feelings:sometimffl serveu!! h!':!tter'than theopes,
~dtheories sometimes serve us better '~n, fe(:!li,ngs: M~a, somefunes
n.W:#W~,~ervEl~ lfS w~U ~t f}ll. GUbert et ~l. (19.9&) fl~~~~fSQn~~~ sm4mts
,.:.',"~.' ".:~",;:.i,:~',l'~;:,~·:., ·,i~ '.. 1,' ',' ',',; ".'
..::,r,·,:,i,,:7::. ::~qW mlich they would enjoy eiliin~"~"~jti·'9.f, ~r<lglwtti the
:"&'Pf fu~ next ev~g. SOqle of th~ .~fu'· ""'were hlffigry ,
" : ...>:1 m:ijqe. fuf:~~ predi<::POIlS, other~ w.~ff· .,me ~t4Hents j
W~f~;,~Uow!,!d to tl$ll< 4eeply about their preqktiQM;' mid oth!'!r~ Were
di~tiacfed while·they made ,their predictions. WheIl the lI1Udent~ were,
.' distracted, they felied on their gut feelings to make the4' predi<::tionS,
~c:i thus the hllUgci!l!&t &tudents naturally predicteq that they would
·like sp&ghetti P.-1.pf~,fu~next day than did the less hungry students.'
-Miswan ting -",': j.
165.
Notably, the time of day at which the spaghetti wastQbe~aten tnaqe
no difference to them at all. Wheq students werealloW¢'~:l- td thIDk .
deeply, however, they relied 9n their theories to make fheir' predic-
tions, and thus they predicted that they would enjoy spaglwtti. (Which'
is generally considered a. more appropriate ilinner 'than breakf~~O
.,
the students' current hunger made no difference to them at
when students were actually brought to the Jqboratory in the lUU'Hl-t-m
or evening ~d given a bite of spaghetti, neither the extent 'of
hunge~the day before nor the time of day at which the spaghetti was
eate!l had a measurable influence on their enjoyment of the food. In
other words; I:!tudents relied on the4' 'cognitive reactiohs when they
cou14, their affective reactions otherwise, cind in this instapce, neither
of these reactions to the imagined event enabled them. to want cor.,.
rectly. ' '
Misw~ting Over Time ~ '. ;
What do sp,qghetti, cheeseburgerl:!, marshmallow'" ~oAld~~~ . toitU.l~
chips, and Snickers ba!s have i~ common? They &re;:q~j~¢.t~·tha.tc§n
be ~anted today and liked tomorrow, but once that l¥1i~;R:~~urs;:t1l~y
.quickly become a trivial bit of personal history that only"'qur tJrlghfl
. remember. Each of these objects can be experienced, but none bf these
experiences has enduring emotional co~equences, and thUs none pro-
. vides an opporhinity for us to think about how people might warit 0;
miswant in the long run. ~en we want ~ bite of pecaii. pie or Ii warm
shower or a sexy kiss, it 'is ·not becaUse' we think the~e.·things will
change us in,some significant w~y~ but because we thirik'th~y Wilt
p!'!rf~ct1y lovely for as long ~ they last. On the. other ham~.; -When
. .wtlh~ ~ promotion or a wedding or a college degree, iti&iip.t~9
because we believe these things wUl improve our Jives at 'th~'p'lQI1n~
We !lt~ain them, but becquse ,we think they wUl provi4~ "
rewards tn.qt will persist long enough to repay the efforLw~ spent"
, . their pu,rsuit. Significant events qre supposed to have'sigTImcaAt
, 'tional consequences, and the duration of these cb~e,quencef; inattei-I:! .
, !~ tot. '.
;' ., If it is difficult to know whether we will be happy 15 tnimites after
:"eating a bite of·spaghetti, it is all the inore difficult t9 knoW-whether
, ',We will be happy 15 months after a divorce or 15 years after a rriar-
;·tiage. Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, 'and Wheatley (1998) Mve " .
:;:'~i~_;
 186 D. T. Giibert aM T. D. Wilson,
, suggested that. peopl~ tend to overestimate the duration of their emo-
tion~l reactions to fitture events' - especially negative events - and
thClt this CCIIl lead them to miswant ill the long term;, For example,
,,' G.iibert ~t al, (1998) asl<~d assistant professors to pre4ict hpw ,happy
fu~y,/w.Q~d he in general a few years afte,r jlchleving Of f~iling to
,: a¢hf~ve tenure, at their current university, and they also meClsured the
,- g~niifal happiness of those former assistant professors who haq or had
np~'A~eVeq tenure at the Same institution. Although assistant profes-
sd,i~, p~U~ved that the tenure decision would drl'l1I\iilticaUy influ.ence
tl!-~i£ g~~ral happiness for many years 'to. cqme (and hence' desper-
ately wanted tenure), the former assistant professors who hCldl10t
adJieved tenure were no less happy than the former &ssistant prafes-
sqr§ 'whQ had. Similarly, Gilberf et al. (1998) askeq voters in a'guber-.
.'.,n~fqd~h~lection to predict how, happy they wOlllq generally be a
j~: ,., ~~nW~4fij~er 'an election. Voters believeq that they wOllld be signifi-
.: c<Hl~fthi!pp~era month after the election if their candidate won than
, ifittw~A~dicJate lost. As it turned out, a month after the election, the
',lQ$~r~'.)q':d winners were just 'IS happy as they had been before 'the
el~~tio~,(see Bric~an, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978; Taylor, i983;
1996; Wortman & Silver; 1989).
..Po not misunderstand: Those assistantpro[essors who were pro-
m,oted anp. those 'voters whQse canqldClte triumpheq Wf!r~ 'surely hap":
pier /'lbout, the eveIlt, and were SlU'ely happier tor !'lOme fune after the
event, than were' those who lo~t their johs or who hackecl the incum-
bellt goverpor, who lost hers: But after just CI little whUe - a much
littler while than the assistant( professors and voters had themselve~
preqictec\ - the emotional traces of these events had evaporated (see
Stili, Diener, & fujita, 1996). What might cause people to overestimate
, the enduring emotional impact of such events?
Focalism: The Invisible Future
When'asked how we might feel a year after losing pur left hand, we
ten4'tQi,inagine the jrp,plediate emotlon1l1 imPClct pf tl)j§,caJalllitr ("No
moi:~~l~pping, no more shoe tying -I'd be sad"). What we do not do
fs'igo:on'to calculate the impact of the derital appointments, foreign
filnisijob promotions, freak snowstorms, and Spicker~ bars that will
inevitably fill the year that follows our unhanding. Rather, we natu-
rally focus on the' event whose emotional impact we ,are trying to
gcHlge and then make !,:lome provision for the pas~ageof time ("I guess
.'. '~·f . . -
Miswimting ',' .
187
,
a year later I'd be a little less sad"). But how we will
feel in 'general CI
year after losing a hand, and how we will feelaliout losing a l;1.CIllq ~ ,
year after the Joss, are not the same thing. Predicting the latter may b~,!'
relativ,ely simple, but predicmig the former requires ~a.t we estimate
the combined,. impact of the focal event andal! the,.nonfocal even.:"
that follow it.:Put another way, our general happiness some time aft':,
an event is influenced by just two things: (a) the event, and (P) eveW~:
thing else. If we estimate that, happiness by consider~gonly the event '
then we are ignoring some of the most powerful detet1lliAa:n;ts of our '
fututl'! 'Yell-being' (see' Loewenstein ~ Schkade; in pre.~s~,~$.QN<ade ,~.
Kahneman, 1997). _ " '" ',:~\,?i,;~\{,:i. ' ,:;;;,/ '
. Wilson, wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert, and Axsom.~~'9,~~}:~~pefn.mi~ I;
strated how focalism (the failure to consider the conseS!~~n£~~J;)fJlgt1r ,.'
focal ,events when making predictions about the ult@~t~t;~~ffel;;«~~
impact of focal events) can give rise to the durability biaS'and henc~:
promote miswanting: College studentll were asked to predi;ct, their. \;
happiness the day after their football team won or lost an important '
game. Spme students were also asked to complete a '(futm:~c:Uary" in
which they 'listed the events that they thought wOuld9cSift)ll the 3
days !l£ter the game. Those stude~ts wh~ completedth~J~( an4
who were thus most likely to consider the impact of f4ti4'¢.:'norifocal
events when making their predictions,. made less eXtrern~:~t~4ictio~
about their general happiness - predictions tha.! turnedJ:IHt.iqpe mOfe
, accurate when their overall happiness'was measured the'q~yafte:r the
game. ,
It seems that merely considering the emotional impact of an,event "
can lead us to overestimate that impact, simply because we do hot
also consider other impactful events ~s well. Focalism is an espec~all¥
vexing problem because avoiding It see~s to require that we do ,the
impossible, namely, consider the impact of every event before estifnat-
ing the impact of any event. H.we think of happiness as a general state
that is determined by innumerableeve~ts, it does indeed seeth likely
that no single event will have the power to influence oUr genet~,r:"
happiness for very l~ng. Inqeed, those events that seem to make a ~i~'fl~;\~n;:
difference (e.g., movmg tp a new country) tend to be those thllt glV~,,'jii'[\(
rise to many other events, which suggests that the nunifications of!Ui : i\Y"
eyent - that is, the sheer number of experiences it alter§.-:m;:ty be the"'; ,
best predictor of its ultimate emotional impact. Althouw;f~W;2parent~
would believe it, the death of ~ spouse mClY have moii;i~'" d than
the death of CI child" simply pecause 'the fOfm¢f ,;, "'Il1W'~{ ;,'

changes in one's life th?ln does the latter (see Lehman et aL 1993). In
. any case, it seems quite clear that fOCUsing on an event can cause us
to overestimate the duration of its influence on our happiness, and,
hence, to lUiswant.
Immune Neglect: The Invisible Shield
Many shrewd observers of the human condition have relllarked on
people's extraordinary abilitY to change the way they feel simply by
changing the way they think. When circumstances threaten our psy-
chological well-being, we execute an assortment of cognitive strate:"
gi!,!~,tactics, and maneuvers that are designed to prevent, limit, or
r~pairthe damage (e.g., Festinger, 1957; Freud, 1937; Steele, 1988;
T~yloi& l3rown, 1988; Vaillant, 1993; Westen, 1994). n~ese maneuvers
, 4~4!l.11:y have two properties. First, they work like a chClrm, enabling
?lM'pf}ls to be well above average in all the W<lYs th&t co'4nt. Second
anqmore important, we tend not to know we il!:e exec4tirg them, and
what looks like rationalization to the giggling onlooker feels very
much like rational reasoning to 11S. Taken together, the mechanisms
thflt protect the sources of our psychological weU-being (e.g., our sense
." '; . ofr~qmpetence, integrity, and worth) in the f<lce of &ssault constitute a
,Jtrnw" c,": l~~cal imnuine system that seems to be both powerful and
.. >}~"":;.'. ttt9, the persor it serves. . .'..,.,',
.,}',l;i.i:f'" .~~happmess is; in fad"ciefended by an 4wisihl~';hleld, then it
., .' ;'~';,itt·:t.qsee why we overestimate our vulner&bility to the slings and
"" .!l.rT9W§'pf outrageous fortune. Recall that voters in the Gilbert et a1.
. (IQ88)'study overestimated the duration of their emotional reactions
'. to their candidaJe's electoral triumph or defeat. ~tere!ltlnj!;ly, voters in
th!l.t study Were also asked to predict how their opinions of the can-
did<ltes would change once one was elected, and their answers rnay
tell Us l?omething abo4t why theyoverestinlated the d4rabUity of their
emotions. Alth04gh voters flatly denied that the outcom,e of the eH~c-
. tion would chanj!;e their opinions of the candidates by even a hair, a
lllo;ntl) after the €!lecp.on, those voters whos~ c~I].(Uqat~ had l()st had
experienced an W,lforeseen transformatiop.:.1\ithill.l.j!;hthe new j!;over-
nor had yet to take office, had yet to perform an official act, anA had
yet to make a s4bstantive speech, those Whqhfl:~tYRt~c'l !lgamsthlm ..
had a significantly higher opinion of hUn t4mt tM:Vha~{haq ~month ..
earlier. It seems that those voters overestimat~cl'th~~~1-lr~tionpU4eir.
dw.~pp'ointment because they did not reali~e thatOi:l~~ th!'!fw~i'e~wck .'
."" '. ;r~jt[:;,!;.' . . '. , . ·,·,,\~~,1;j;,',:::\::;·:; ;J.'
Miswanting 189
with· a governor whom they had not wanted, their psychological im~
mune systems would help them locate 16 new ,:t;easop.sto1ike him
anyway:
GUbert et al. (1998) provided direct experimental, evid\7nce of hn-
mune neglect: the tendency for people to faU to consider how retidily .
their psychological immune systems will vitiate their despq-ir. Sm':i;:~,
dents were given the opportunity to apply for an exciting ~nd !ucra.,Lk"
tive position as an ice-cream taster in a model business. The applica- . .:
tion process included answering several- questions before a video
camera while judges watched Hom another' room. The situation was
. arranged such that if students were rejected, their psychological iII].-
mune systems would have much more work to do in one condition ..
than the other. Specifically, students in the " cUfficult rationalization!!
condition were shown a number of highly relevant qllestlons and
were told that while answering these questio:t1!' they would be ob':'
served by a panel of j4dges, Who would then vote orithestudent's
appropriateness for the job. Unless the judges trnanim9t!sly' disap-
proved of the student, he or she would be offer¢d the joP;'Ifttl:le" easy
rationalization" condition, students were shown a ntlmber'Q'f largely
irrelevant questions and were told that while answering these ques~<."~~
tions .they would be' observed by a single judge who would solely 'F';4~¥!i"
cleterntine whether or not they were· offered the job, Students in eachH,';,~:
condition predicted how they WOllid feel. if they werer'ejected, anq ,
. how they would feel 10 minutes later. All participants ther answered
the relevant or irrelevant questions before the video camera m'ld wer~
promptly rejected. Their happiness wasmeasuied irrunedjately' foF
lowing the rejection and then again 10 minutes !tIter. . \" .
A.s the top part of Figure 8.1 shows, thestude,ntsbeIieyed they.;
would he much less happy. iriunediately following rejection than they'
actually turned out to be. But as the 'bottom part ofF~gur~ 8,1'show~1
the 1l10re interesting effect.oct;urreq 10 lUinutes lah~h:N.Qt '
all the students happier than.! they expected to he':: .
being rejected, but they were happier when they ha&
& soio judge who had heard tl1em answer irrelev<trir4~t:"I'W!'!+
when they had been rejected bya panel of judges'
them answer irrelevant question(>. This diff~rence reveals· the u",....... ',,·
the psychological immune system, wNch shohld have found it
to he~l the wounds of rejection in the easy rationalization condition . '
("One guy doesn't' think I'm competent. So what? Maybe I look like
his eX-r001l1mate, or maybe he's biased against Southerners, or maybe
 Miswanting 191

he just diqn't have enough information to go on") than ill the difficult
rationalization condition ("An entire gro~p of judges ,agreed on the
. basis pf !lclequate inforqiation that I'm not smart enoue;h to ti'\!>te ice
lnunediately cream? Yikes!"). The important point is that the stuQimts did not
anticipqte this difference, which suggests that when they looked into
their emotional futures, they 'flaw only the pain c;>f rejecpon, What they
• Easy - Difficult did not consider was the ease or difficulty with which theirpsycholog- '.
ical immune systems would-dispatch their malaise. '.,
Immune neglect can have important interpersonqlcgru>gquences .
too. For. example, few of us would expect to comel!t1Jlo,ne if an . '
irdtatedIriotorist shouted a few choice words about o4f~R9).~~ntageas
we crossed against the light, but we might well expectto 4e:$hocked
and dismayed if a good friend did the same. We expecfP,nlnsulting
3
remark from a stranger to be less painful than an insulting remark.
a
from friend, and thus we might naturally expect the former to have
less enduring eqiotional consequences_than the latter. Gilbert and
Experlence~ Lieberman (1998) asked pairs of college students to eVi'\ltlate each
other's personalities on the basis of brief autobiographlesin which
they had explicitly been ask~d to describe some embarrassing inci- "
dents. Some students wer~ told that they would work together as a
team later 'in the exp~riment ("partners") and others were told that
they would never meet ("strangers"). The students were asked to
predict how they would feel a few minutes after finding out that the
Ten Minutes Later .other student had read their autobiography and given them' a very
negative evaluation, and indeed, they predicted that they would feel
worse H the negative evaluation came from their partner thal1 from a
8· _Easy. stranger. In fact, the students were considerably happier after receiving
a negativeeva14ation f!,om their partner than a from a stranger, .
. t1:}ey' even forgave their partners more readily than they fr.·,'0-""0
strangers. Why should this have happened? '
Once again the invisibility of the psychological immune
t

seems to explain these paradoxkal results.· Most of us find it, .

t1ncOmfortllble to interact with people we do not like, and ~o we
highly motivated to like those with 'whom we must interact (Darley
Berscheid, 1967). Our psychological immune systemsWorJt much
harder to help us find ways to forgive our partner's tra~g1i~ssipnS ,.
1 ("My partner probably didn't realize that. the embatra&Smgjf~9ideht f, ,
wrote about in my autobiogrflphy was a unique occurI'~n:~~}.~~P: rWw' "
that I think of it, I'd probably have made the same negqtt~'-~~~¥~!J,ifttWH.
myself if I were in the same position") than to forgivethl)f'ti®sire~~:Ci
.. "';~~i;:;~;'" }~,iJ!;i~1:l!! ~,,;
 192 D. T. Gilbert (md, T, O. Wilson
, ,
,·.ti~~'t~i9n~'Qf §trangers, Theinsulted students' psyc;twlogi.c'li immune sys-
) WPCtems)dld wh&t they were designed to do by en<\blmg them to feel
."":":'h~kpy about working With so~eone WpOhCld evaluateel them neg a-
, .". tii~l.Y/What is interesting, of course, is that the students were unable
toli#~~itt this outcome jtlsno minutes be~qre i~ h&ppeneel. Like most
. ", "of;,l.!!lttMy blithely predicted that a big pam woulellast lr:>nger than a
"', Httleone( unClware that pig pains often evoke r~medie~}hM little pains
.•' ",' j}9t, 'Broken legs hwt SO much th'lt they cry out to P¢PXeq, where'ls
, . ,,' are oftffi Allowed to go on hurting for a lifetime.
, ;' , negl~~t qm Pluse us to'misw,mt hf ciil,lainr, 11,8, to fell~llnel,
' t h a t will not, in the long run, hffiqer oHr happmess,
, "~onseql,lence of theJ'lilure to anticipate the operation. of
~;I.IJlU:~~l;'CH imm!lne ;:>ystem is that we rnClY inClelvertentlydo '.
ttwtWillLJ.n"B'l impf\4' its. Rperation, thereby undermining our pwn. hidden'
" ' happiness, For eXample, if given the opportunity to shop at
a " that allows customers to return merchandise for any reason
an~ another store at 'which all sales are final, most of us would patron-
ize the first rather than the second - and we might even be willing to
pay a bit more just, so we could have the luxury of, changing OUf!
minds later on. We firmly believe that bridges oll,ght to be there for
crqssing and recrossing, and our aversion to burning them is probably
wise in many respects. But if keeping one's options open is wise in,
many respects, it is not wise inall respects, becallse open ~pti~ns have
the llIlfortunate conseqll,ence of paralyzi~gthe psychological ~mmupe
system. As dissonance theorists have long noted, if is 't~e firm. com-
mihnenttoa single COllrse of action th!:lt most effectlvely tnggers
.. Ftttemptsto justify it.' " '" ' . As the man whqnarrowly missed the opportunity tQ1 franChise the '
, Gilbert and Jenkins (1998) gave college qmd~nts &shprt course m
bi~cl<::M4-white photography, The stuelents tookphotdgrflphs of their'
". f~Y~rH~·p~ople and places on campUS mlq wen~tlwn t~Hght how to
q~V~i9i'their photogri:\phs. After studentsha4 Pfint~g 'their two fa"'
" v~hte~ph.ptographs, they were asked to dOl1ate One pf them to the
" ,,' e?<p~efWl~nter's !'photo~raphY project." ~oml,'!!>mdep.t~ were told ~atJ
th~ elpriated pnotClgrf!.ph wOl1ld pe mallep to Eng;Ii:\mtthi:1t eyepmg,·
whereas others w~re told th<!-t the photogr&ph WOllid not be maile.d
, for 5 'PaYs. St11,d~nts in this l<ttter condition were tol4 that if they,',
" cli~g~4 their minds abOllt whj.ch photograph to keep after they mad~i ",
t ' ';'1jon, they ,<;:ollid swap the chosen for the don<tted photograpH·
efore it w'!-s mailed. When the stuelents' happiness with their, ,
hs Wflfl :fl1~~sure4 2 days later, those whose ctecisi~ns ,
Mt~wimting 193
reversible did not like the chosen photograph as much as gi4 those
students whose decisions were irreversible. This makes sense inas-,
much as these students were probably still in the process. of deciding
which photograph they would keep, and thus they di4 not yet have a
final outcome with which their psychological immune systems !could " "
help thli!m feel happy. But interestingly; 9 days later" the irreversible
deciders were still happier with their photographs than were the reo:
versible deciders- despite the fact that th~ reversible deciders' "SWFtP~
ping opporwnity" had expired days ago and their unchosen phot6~
graph W'lS irrevocably wh1gmg its way across the Atlantic. It' seli!J:nS, ,
that merely having had a brief opportunity toch<\llge theirnlinds'
prevented reversible deciders from ever exercising their hielden tal~nt .,
for happiness. , ' , ' " :', ' , "".:
All of this work on immune neglect leads to one <;:Oh~fwHpn: Our
tenden:cy to neglect the operation of the immune system wh~n "
pating the future can have lll1happy consequences. We often wfffit8ne
thing so much more than another that w~ willingly inc!.!r '~. ,', "
costs in our attempts to avoid the unwanted event; W~ 'spend
little time willi our children anel neglect our~obbies while p'l.Ittmg m'
long hO'\,lrs at the office because we are convinced that keeping our
current job will be better than being forced to find a nevy, qne, What
we faU to realize is that while the thing we wanted to exp¢rl.~nC~ is in
some ways better than the thing we wanted to avoid, it Is probably
, worse in others, and should we fail to achieve what we w?ffiteel, our
psychological jmm.une systems will qmckly·help us locate·th~ ways in
which the thing we got was better than the thirig we wereairning for.
first McPonalds restaurcmt (and hence narrowly missed the opportti~
, 'city to become a billionaire) noted many decacles .later( 1'1 b~liey~ H,
, ,:tumed out for the best" (Van Gelder, 1997). lfwe do mdeeq havel"
, talent for happiness than we rec,ognize, then 011.r igno.ranc\'! of,·
talent may cause us to pay a steeper price for f4ture experience~ .•
we should.
naive psychology of happiness is simple: We Want, we try, we
w~ like. An4 then, w~th th~ help of television commercials, we ' '
~oTlle more. Wants are urtderwritten by our beliefs about the '
, p~tween getting and liking, and in this sense tlwy . are .pre~
 ,194 D. T. Gilbert andT. D. Wil$on
~criptions for action. They tell uS' what to do with our· time by telling
us whilJ to aim for and what to avoid, and we allow ourselves to be
ste!=red DY them bec~use we trust that they are, by and large, correct.
.Most of us feel certain that if we could experiertce all the events and
9nly the events we want to experience, happiD~sS would. mevitably
f~llow. . tion of interpersonal contact. Uuman Relations, 10, 29-40.
The research discussed in this chapter suggests that there flre at
h~ast two fl.Cl.WS mthe nalVe analysis of happmess: Pir~tr auf wants !ire,
. like any other prediction, susceptible to error. We way Wisconstrue
,".•. events,. rrUsunderstand ourselves, misinterpret our feelings - and imy
;':, of thes~'mistakescan be a cause of miswanting. In short, things do
;:',n~t,'~lW~YI> feel the way we expect them to feel. Second, even if we
. ,/;t.:;)ilL;~;;,t"~out4;'pre4ict how much we w,o~ld like fll1 event when it.h!'lppene~,
. "~'\/;2;'wemight ~till be llfl!'lble to predtct how tn'lt evert! WPHlg ,~ffect l.l§ m
.F , '; thelmig rUn. One reason is that our general. happ4w~s i~ m~uenced
It
.' DY a Jl111ltitude of events, is impossible to consider all of these
.'. . . ' every time we consider one of them, of course, but uruess
, . that;· we have little hope of correctly pred.ictmg the future ,
their cODjoint prociucts. A second reaSQ!1 WhY We haY!,!
".
the enduring emotional conseq4lmcesof an event ..'
'doel'lll,Q\ foHow qOIIl getting so much ilS it ffcr:;pmmJJdatcs
., . our initial emotional reaction to an event is l1su'llly based .
on . ' • ·.prop~rti~s oflhe e~ent that caused us to !'lim for it Or '&void
, it 4"rthefirst place, once!'l particular outcome is !'lchievedtwe have an
uncmmy !'lbility to reCOl1strue it in terms of its most i:;anguine proper-
.. ties, BeCause we do not recognize how easily we can reconstrue events •
in this way, we anticipate more enduring reactions th<U1 we often
have. . .. , . ....• <..,
"In the world there flre ,only two tragedies," wrot(': Oscar wn~e .-
(1893)."One is not getting what one wants, ?ind the' other is getting;
anq
it." We ~ll chuckle nod knowingly when we hear thill'!Flever quipt .
but not o~e at us believes it for a moment. Rather; oUrchuclding and.
: nodding are licensed by a serene certainty that the thhlgs·we :run after·
will, in fact, bring us far greater happiness th@ the things we run .
. from. The research discu~sed mthis ch!'lpterdoes not sugge!lt that
ends ~re emotionally eqUivalent or that alldesiTes !'lre
Ratper, it merely suggests that if we could MOW the fut\lre, we
, wigh-tnot know how much we would like it when we got there.
"'., psy9hological mechanisms that keep us from this l<nowledge
many, and a better understanding of them seems well worth
Miswanting 195
References
Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulm,an, R. J. (1978). Lottery winners and
i C!cciqent victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Spcial
. Psychplogy, 36, 917-927. '
Parley, J. M., & Berscheid, E. (1967). Increased liking cC!used by thefmticipa-
.
Dunning, p., Griffin, D.W., Milojkovi~, J., & Ross, L. (l990).iTh~>qyer­
confidence e£fel=t in social prediction. Journal of Personality find ,Sg(ijalpsy-
cnology, 58,568-581. . , " . , .' .
putton,· p. G., .& Aron, A. P; (1974). Some evidence for heightenJcf sexuai
attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality al1d $ocial
. Psychology, 30, 510-517. '. '
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA; Stanford
University Press. ' ' .
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM) .
Psycholpgical Bulletin, 117! 39-66. . .
Freud, A. (1937). The ego and the mechahisms of defense. London: Hogarth Press .
Gilbert, D. T., Gill, M" & Wilson, T.!.). (1998). Uow do we know whqt we will
like? The infprmational basis of affective for-fcasting. Unpublished manuscript,
Harvard U n i v e r s i t y . . ' .
Gilbert, D. T., & Jenkins, J. (1998). Effects of decision reversibility pn satisfaction.
Unpublished data, Harvard University. ' ' . . . ,: .
Gilbert, D. T., & Lieberman, M. (1998). Factors influencing forgiveness pf an
interpersonal transgression. Unpublished data, Harvard University.'
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E., Wilson, T. p., Blumberg, S:, & Wheatley, 'F. (1998):
. . Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affecti.ve forecasting. !oyr- .
. , 'nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617-638. .
, Griffin, n W., Dunning, D., & Ross, L. (1990). The role of c;:onstrual processes
in overconfident predictions about the self and others. Journal of Personal~
, tty and Social Psychology, 59, 112s-:.1139.· . .
, Gtiffln, D. W., & Ross, L. (1991). Subjective construal, socilll inference, and
hJ.i.man Jnis4nderstanding. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advance~ infXPfrirfiental
s09tal p~Y9hplogy (Vol. 24, pp. 319-356). New York: Academic Press.'·
.K.ahnleman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a change in taste: Do p;¢cip1e lmovy .
what they vyUllike? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, ~877f()Oii' .•.
Lehman, D. R, Davis, C. G., Delongis, A., 'Worfm.an, C. B., Bluck, ~JMM4ei; .
.
. . D. R, & Ellard, J. H. (1993). Positive and negative life chang¢s. fQiibW~g .
bereavement and their relations to adjustment. Journal of Social anrJ.r;Uv.ic:al .
Psychology, 12, 90-112. , . . '.
'Loewenstein, G., & Schkade, D. (in press).' Wouldn't it be nice?:.:pj:~~Uf:ttng
'. . future feelihgs. In E. Diener, N. Schwartz,& D. Kahneman (Eclfi.),':ti~dg~jc
. psychology: Scientific approaches to enjoyment, suffering, and w~ll-btiii1i;N¢w
Yorl<: Russell Sage Foundation Press. . .
C. G., Lepper, M. R, & Mackie, D. (1984). Attitude prototypesasdj;lter-
mmants of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social'
. Psychology, 46, 1254-1266. .
 Miswanting . 19~
'.. .
~,
'. ' . , ,,'

.~ sourc~of du,rabili(; b~' 'in. affec.tive Jo~eca~tini. unpublis~ed

. '. ..' r i . . .:

Lpew~stein, G. r1995). Piversification bias: Explaining the' dis- Focazism:

m' variety. seeking between combirled anel separated choices. manuscript, University of Virginia, ' . " .. .' '.
. of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 34-:49. Wortman, C. B., & Silver, R. C. (1989). The 'myths of coping with loss. JO~ni4(' ,
',' R. J., Keltner, p., Ward, A., & Ross, L. (1995). Actual versqs as- j . of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 349-357. '
differences in construal: "Naive realism" in intergroup perception
rnTlt'1(.t·jo'urnalpfPersonality tjn4 Social Psychology, 68, 4:04---4l7.. '
C;:':;J;"".,,..,. N. (1990).: r~uPgs iis ipfonnation: lnfonnal:lo~al and. P1otiva,tional
nmctiQ' ns pf affective: st~tes .. lI\ E. T. H. R. SprrenQno' (E4.), Handbook of' .
... "'.
II"

, motivation and cOg11#ion: Foundationspf soci", /Jehavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527-561). ,

'. New York: GuUford Press. . ' , .

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G.L. (1983). Mood., mis,!lttribqtion, anel judgments pf
wIlU-p~ing: Informative and el4'ective functions of affective states. JourlUll
, pjPersonality anfl Socia~ PSYchology, 45, 513-523.
Sch.l<a~e, D. A., &,·Kah.ne~! ·D. (1997). Woul4 you beflappY.if you lived in
C(llijornia? A foq~sing #1usion' in judgments pf ll'ell-being. Unpublished
manqscript!Univer~lty pf Te~as, Austin.
,Simonson, l. (1990). Th~ effect of purchase quantity anq timing on variety . .
~f
. !le~g beha,vior.lplImal of Mtlrketing Research, 32, l5(}-162. ','
.~

i~
d . \
, "\Stl'lele, c. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: S"l!t_g the integ-
rity of self. In L. 13er~owitz (Ed.), Advances in ~xperim~llta1 spc:ial psycholpgy
, (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). New York: AClldemiC Prese. .' . .
'.' SW1! ~'( Diener, E~, & flljita, R(1996). Event!! ~nd subjective w~ll-being: Only
t~'r~~ent events matter. Journal of Personality find Social P$Yclwlogy, 70, 1091-
"r n02. ,
., T;tyloJ.', $. E. (l983), Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive
.
: .~
. .~,h. ~H;t~p.tation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161-1173. .' "
T~ylQr, B.E., &: 13rowp, J. D. (l988). Illusion and well.-peing: A social-
;~<;. p~ychological perspective on mental health. Psychological 'BJ!~letin, 103,
i93-210.' .
T~ylor( S. E., & MmOf, p. A. (1996). positive UlusJp.nl! ~4 fPFmg with ~dver-
.: ~ . ~t:: ~itr· Jotlmal of P~rson41ity, 64, 873-898. . '. ' .
'. .. ~t! '.'G, (t993). The Wisdom ()f the ego. Cam.pridg~;
' ~". ; .
lianrArel
.
University' .
h . . ~.
: fir~L;(1996, January 7} .. Remempering tMn:illq not taJ.<en. The
jm~,p.W, "
",: , (1994). ToW~d an integrative model of affect Jfi!gu1ation: Aool1c:a-
t~QlW)O s.p(:fall'~ycho!ogicalresearch.']ournal Of Per~onality, (;2, P41-667; '.
'" A~(Q; n8.93). tRay Wmdermere'{J fan: A play abQijt II 800d.lVam~n. .
.-:- .
';,;:"·M~thews. ~ H.me. , ' ,';:> " : j
.. ::.~
Wi1&Qn, T. D., &: lh:el4% N. (1994). Melltal cont~m.in!!u.pn· MAP1entl\l ,
, .pon: VJl.wf!.llt~4 4dluences on juclgni.ents ~el I'!v~lp~tip.ns. Pst.,c1uJllo~iical.
pulletin, H(i, 117'·4i2.
Wileon, T. D.;- Lisle, p" §chooler, J., Hodges, $. p., l<l~Il~en, K. j., & ""U'lt=Ulr.
S.}. (l993).INrpspe«;fulg about reasons can reeluc~ pos~~choice SatlISfa~~
. tion. P(!rlJonality find Sociql pSYchology Bulletin, 19,331-339,
Wilson, T. D., YVh~iln:y, 1'., Meye'r~, J., Gilbert, D. T., & J\xsom~ D.
 · :;'.'
Feeling and Thinking: .
The Role of "Affect in SoCial Cognition

Edited by
Joseph P. Fotgas
University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia.

;. '

I
T'

1,: CAMBRIDGE· .
trN:rvERSITY PRESS·

& pqHions qe l~ Maison des Sciences de I'Romine

Paris·

View publication stats