Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Impact bias

Impact bias:
What causes it, what are its consequences, and how can it be overcome?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

Figure 1. Thinking about how you'd feel by following a certain course of action. Scenario What is the last big decision you made? Or the last time you found yourself at a crossroads, deciding whether to pursue one choice over another? (see Figure 1). Upon your contemplation, there were probably moments where you thought, "This will change everything". Maybe you imagined that taking that new job would transform your life, changing your study plan would make you less stressed, or that buying the latest phone would lead to everlasting happiness. But, once it does happen, reality sets in and things don’t feel as different as you anticipated. Or, a few weeks pass and you've adjusted. You aren't experiencing the extent of the initial feeling you expected.

Impact bias is a psychological concept that explains the tendency to overestimate one’s emotional response, including the magnitude and endurance experienced, to a future event. This cognitive inclination affects decision-making and expectations across various life domains, including career choices, relationship decisions, and goal-setting. Impact bias can occur irrespective of a person’s current emotional state and whether the future event is positive or negative (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005).

Understanding impact bias can help individuals better comprehend their own emotional estimations and reactions. By considering research and providing practical strategies to mitigate its effects, people can learn to more reliably assess future emotions, set realistic expectations, and ultimately make decisions that will favour well-being and promote long term happiness. Applying informed prevention strategies and adopting a broader outlook can empower individuals to manage their emotional environment more effectively.

What's the big deal? Impact bias can lead to impaired judgements and decision making based on expected emotional outcomes (Wood & Bettman, 2007). The phenomenon is associated with negative emotional and cognitive consequences, including the underestimation of one's resilience and ability to adapt, and creating unrealistic expectations around happiness, resulting in disappointment and dissatisfaction. Individuals often undervalue or overvalue the emotional impact of past experiences, leading to impairments in future decisions (Wilson et al., 2005).

Focus questions: How can different psychological perspectives explain impact bias? What contributes to impact bias? Why do people overestimate the emotional impact of future events? How does impact bias effect lives and decision-making process? What strategies can prevent impact bias?

Understanding impact bias

Psychological perspectives

Impact bias can be evaluated through the lens of several psychological perspectives. Different perspectives may provide possible explanations relevant to the bias' occurrence.

Cognitive

A cognitive psychological perspective emphasises internal mental mechanisms including perception, attention, decision-making and memory (Eysenck & Keane, 2015). Under this perspective, impact bias may be explained due to inaccuracies in thinking processes such as the lack of a comprehensive viewpoint (attending to a narrow source of information) and incapacities of predicting future affect or accurately perceiving past emotional reactions. This perspective relates to several related thinking tendencies outlined in Contributing factors.

Appraisal theory of emotion is a related cognitive component explaining how individuals evaluate future events and predict their emotional reactions. The theory suggests that emotions emerge from how individuals assess or perceive events (Schmidt et al., 2010). In impact bias, the emotional impact of future events is overestimated based on initial appraisals. When making future emotional predictions, people tend to focus on the immediate emotional appraisal (e.g., joy, fear) overlooking how emotions will change over time.

Appraisal theory also acknowledges the reappraisal of situations (Webb et al., 2012). People tend to adapt to and reevaluate events, often reducing their emotional impact. This may explain impact bias in that it occurs as people neglect to anticipate this future reappraisal and believe their initial emotional assessment will remain unchanged.

Behavioural

Human actions from a behavioural perspective are outlined to be a result of learning and modified in response to the environment (Watson, 1998). In alignment with this perspective, impact bias may be an outcome of learning. Emotion following a past experience may be assumed to occur again even if the events are not the same. An individual may learn from a past experience that elicited an unpleasant or persistent feeling to be over cautious of similar future events. Additionally, social learning and social norms may shape an individual’s beliefs about the anticipated emotional outcomes to certain events (van der Schalk et al., 2015), contributing to the bias.

Figure 2. Under pressure: Loss aversion amplifies the stress of anticipated failure.

Loss aversion, a concept pertaining to behavioural economics, is a cognitive bias in which individuals assign greater importance to losses than gains of equal extent. Decision-making is impacted by loss aversion, as well as risk-taking behaviours. People are more likely to choose options that will prevent experiencing losses (Yechiam & Hochman, 2013). For example, a person may overestimate how disappointed they would be following a failed exam (loss), because they have learned that minimising failures is significant to succeeding. This learned avoidance reinforces impact bias, leading them to focus more on preventing negative outcomes than on the potential benefits of success (see Figure 2).

Evolutionary

From an evolutionary standpoint, impact bias may arise from evolved cognitive and emotional mechanisms that aid in human survival. Humans detect potential threats in the environment and have a nervous system that optimises behaviours for survival (Mobbs et al., 2015). As anticipating threats is critical for survival, particularly given the context in which humans have evolved from, overestimating the emotional impacts of events relevant to surviving in today's world may elicit more avoidance or approach behaviours as we perceive it necessary for survival. In a modern world, this could look like the avoidance of failure or social rejection, or being motivated to achieve status or maintain a certain body type.

Contributing factors

Immune neglect

People are typically unaware of the cognitive mechanisms that help reduce their negative emotional experiences, often referred to as the psychological immune system. Consequently, an overestimation occurs of how long negative emotions follow adverse events. In one study, in response to six different live events, participants did not recognise when their psychological immune system would mitigate their emotional response, leading them to predict similarly prolonged reactions regardless of the situation (Gilbert et al., 1998). These findings are replicated in several studies, one in particular examined affective forecasting across nine football matches, and found that individuals tended to overestimate their emotional responses to both victories and defeats (Hoerger et al., 2009). This reveals a key limitation in human affective forecasting in that individuals consistently fail to account for the mitigating effects of their psychological immune system, leading to inflated predictions of emotional reactions. This oversight, evident across various contexts, suggests a systematic under acknowledgement of cognitive recovery mechanisms, supporting relevance of impact bias across different emotional events.

Focalism

Focalism often occurs with the impact bias, the inclination for people to concentrate excessively on possible negative outcomes while disregarding potential improvements or stability (Ellis et al., 2018). Numerous studies support focalism's contribution to impact bias. Participants consistently exhibit a tendency to predict heightened emotional responses to events, demonstrating a lack of awareness regarding how other life factors will mediate their feelings (Gilbert & Wilson, 2003; Lench et al., 2011). For instance, in research related to affective forecasting, individuals often fixated on single outcomes, failing to account for the dynamic nature of emotional experiences and the interplay of other events or relevant context (Lench et al., 2011).

Scenario: Misjudging the difference Figure 3. The isolation effect distorts emotional forecasting and impacts decision-making. Imagine you're entering your first year of university – you’re excited and nervous to choose which student accommodation will be right for you. Lodge A offers picturesque views and parties, while Lodge B is known for its quiet atmosphere and close-knit community. You focus on Lodge A’s modern design and location, while your friend prefers Lodge B for its tranquillity. Both options share common features like support services and campus access, but you overlook these due to a related component of impact bias, the isolation effect. Once the semester begins, Lodge A's appeal fades, and your friend thrives in Lodge B.

Isolation effect

Relevant to the case scenario above, the isolation effect is described as the tendency to overly focus on distinguishable characteristics, and cancelling out shared similarities when given two options (Kahneman & Tversky, 2013).

Similar to focalism, both concepts involve adopting a narrow focus and making assumptions based on this narrow outlook, likely resulting in inaccurate predictions regarding future happiness. In research by Dunn et al., (2003), when students were asked to predict their future happiness based on several dormitory living environments, they assigned much more emphasis on the options physical aspects than the social ones. However, in a follow-up a year later, findings indicated that their actual happiness was shaped more by social connections than by the physical environment (Dunn et al., 2003). By focusing too heavily on the differences in housing features that were not likely associated with long term well-being, a significant overestimation of how much housing assignment would affect overall happiness occurred.

Hedonism

People often underestimate their own coping abilities and their natural tendency to return to baseline happiness. Hedonistic thinking is common and stems from the notion that pleasure should be maximised, behaviours are acted upon based on pleasure or satisfaction (Becker et al., 2019). The hedonic treadmill, an individual's capacity to adapt to new circumstances and return to a baseline level of happiness over time (Klausen et al., 2022), goes against the idea that significant events will have a lasting impact on emotional states. This theory aligns with impact bias, both challenging long-term approaches, and disregarding delayed gratification or deeper fulfilment over immediate gains. Additionally, overly focusing on the emotional outcomes of a decision.

Hedonistic thinking, immune neglect, and the cognitive tendencies associated with impact bias all share a common theme, the underestimation of being able to adapt to circumstances. People often fail to acknowledge how quickly or the magnitude to which they will emotionally adjust to later events (Gilbert et al., 1998; Hoerger et al., 2009).

Individual differences

Individual differences, which significantly influence various cognitive mechanisms, have a significant role in decision-making. These differences, like personality traits and emotional intelligence, can both mediate and modulate the degree to which impact bias affects an individual's emotional forecasting and subsequent decisions (Hoerger et al., 2016; Preston et al., 2021; Riaz & Syed. 2022).

Evidence suggests that in relation to various events (including sporting matches, important days of celebration, elections and movie snippets), individuals with greater introversion and neurotic traits more accurately estimated their more unpleasant emotional responses. Conversely, those scoring high on extraversion and lesser on neuroticism accurately estimated more pleasant emotional responses (Hoerger et al., 2016). The same research by Hoerger and colleagues (2016), outlined that 30% of the match between expected and experienced emotional outcomes is due to the personality traits of an individual. Other research mimic these findings, affirming that neuroticism and extraversion advance the development of affective forecasts, detailing a positive relationship between extraversion and predicted feelings (Hansenne & Virginie, 2019). Cumulatively, this highlights how neuroticism and extraversion impact both forecasted and actual emotional reactions. This aligns with the isolation effect and focalism, as neurotic individuals are increasingly likely to inflate specific features and attend to negative information, often making further assumptions that impact behaviour (Noguchi et al., 2006).

Additionally, envisioning the future is linked to our present emotions and how we individually use emotion as information (Marroquín & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015). Given this, certain personality types or those scoring high on particular traits may be more vulnerable to negatively skewed emotional predictions.

Emotional intelligence is another feature of individual differences to consider for impact bias. In a study relevant to predicting emotional outcomes, a strong association was found between emotional intelligence and predicting, processing, and integrating emotional responses (Hoerger et al., 2012). This is supported by other studies indicating the relationship between emotional intelligence and the mediation of several cognitive biases (Preston et al., 2021; Riaz & Syed. 2022).

Practical applications

Figure 4. Miscalculation of emotional outcomes of past events likely impairs decision making.

Decision-making

• Impact bias affects consumer behaviour, as how long a buying decision will create perceived happiness for the consumer is typically evaluated when making purchase options (Wood & Bettman, 2007).
• Pro-health behaviours are often affected by impact bias. A novel study outlined the tendency for participants to have exaggerated anticipated negative emotions and an underestimation of positive emotions associated with eating a perceived health food (Dillard et al., 2024).
• Individuals frequently miscalculate the degree to which past experiences influence their happiness and tend to minimise the impact of unfavourable past events (Figure 3). This distortion in perception can impair their ability to make well-informed decisions in the future (Wilson et al., 2005).

How can impact bias be prevented?

Strategies to reduce impact bias share a common theme of expanding one’s focus beyond a single event. Prevention tactics typically involve promoting a more holistic view, either through additional context or diverting attention to other life aspects. These approaches counteract the tendency to focus too narrowly on one event and over exaggerate its significance. Practicing cognitive strategies allow individuals to better anticipate emotional fluctuations and build resilience (Padesky & Mooney, 2012).

In the study examining affective forecasting relevant to football matches, findings indicated a faster recovery from game losses among participants who reported increased application of emotional processing coping strategies (Hoerger et al., 2009). Concordantly, keeping a diary specifying other events occurring at the same time as a significant main event can lessen the bias. This reduction may happen because the diary distracts from the main event or disrupts the thinking that leads to the bias (Sevdalis & Harvey, 2020). It is hypothesised that these effects occur because diary keeping enhances context around the main event that elicits favourable emotional affects (Wilson et al., 2000).

Therefore, alternative strategies that aim to provide further context or divert from the main event would be beneficial. For instance, intentionally ensuring other plans and activities persist simultaneously as significant events may encourage a more realistic view of emotions. This may promote the message that emotions are impacted by more than one main event, thus lessening the perceived magnitude of the significant event. Enriching a person's life with more context may counteract the workings of focalism.

Developing emotional intelligence, including a person’s capacity to recognise, comprehend and mediate one’s emotions is worthwhile to consider. Since those with higher emotional intelligence are better at predicting and processing emotional responses (Hoerger et al., 2012), this suggests that a higher emotional intelligence will allow to better anticipate emotions and their fluctuations. This may reduce the exaggeration of emotional impact of future events and mitigate immune neglect. However, being a skill that takes time to develop, this solution may not be immediate and effectiveness may be dependent on the individual's baseline emotional awareness.

Additionally, acknowledging habituation by recalling past distressing circumstances that were eventually overcame, reduces immune neglect (Wilson & Gilbert, 2005).

Through the lens of hedonistic theory, the focus on momentary pleasure neglects wider and more enduring sources of happiness, such as social relationships or personal growth. Adopting a future oriented perspective that focuses on increasing long term happiness may provide more lasting satisfaction (Lopes et al., 2016) and accordingly, undermine impact bias.

Learning check! Choose the correct answer and click "Submit": Which statement regarding impact bias is least accurate? Impact bias only applies to negative events Impact bias leads to overestimating the emotional impact of events Expected positive emotions can influence impact bias just as expected negative emotions can Impact bias can influence decision-making processes.

Conclusion

Impact bias refers to the overestimation of the intensity and duration of emotional responses to later events, impacting decision-making across various life areas. This bias can be explained through the lens of various psychological approaches. A cognitive perspective highlights the involvement of cognitive errors, such as narrow focus and inaccurate appraisals or emotional forecasting. From a behavioural perspective, learned responses and loss aversion relate, while evolutionary factors may cause overestimations of emotional impacts for survival. Taking a holistic approach can help individuals understand their forecasting tendencies and make better informed decisions.

Several mechanisms contribute to impact bias. Immune neglect, where individuals underestimate their psychological recovery after negative events, is a key factor, supported by multiple studies. Focalism and the isolation effect further emphasise how narrow focus leads to skewed emotional predictions, while hedonistic thinking disregards long-term emotional adaptation. This is complemented by literature on how individual differences, such as personality traits and emotional intelligence, mediate or exacerbate impact bias. Future studies should explore how these factors interact to refine the understanding of affective forecasting errors. Additionally, more recent research and considering impact bias variability across various age groups may enrich findings, given that much of the research is dated and includes university aged participants.

The downfalls associated with prevention strategies are minimal and largely outweighed by their benefits. Most approaches are realistically applicable and carry no significant negative consequences. Strategy effectiveness may vary based on individual differences, but are low-risk approaches that aid in maintaining a balanced perspective and promote positive well-being.

See also

• Affective forecasting (Wikipedia)
• Retrospective regret (Wikiversity)

References

Becker, S., Bräscher, A. K., Bannister, S., Bensafi, M., Calma-Birling, D., Chan, R. C. K., Eerola, T., Ellingsen, D. M., Ferdenzi, C., Hanson, J. L., Joffily, M., Lidhar, N. K., Lowe, L. J., Martin, L. J., Musser, E. D., Noll-Hussong, M., Olino, T. M., Pintos Lobo, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). The role of hedonics in the Human Affectome. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 102, 221–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.05.003

Dillard, A. J., Dean, K. K., & Langenberg, A. (2024). Emotions for a novel health food: Is there an impact bias and can it be reduced?. Eating behaviors, 53, 101880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eatbeh.2024.101880

Dunn, E. W., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Location, location, location: the misprediction of satisfaction in housing lotteries. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 29(11), 1421–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203256867

Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2015). Cognitive psychology: A student's handbook (7th ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315778006

Ellis, E. M., Elwyn, G., Nelson, W. L., Scalia, P., Kobrin, S. C., & Ferrer, R. A. (2018). Interventions to Engage Affective Forecasting in Health-Related Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis. Annals of behavioral medicine: a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 52(2), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kax024

Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(3), 617–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.001

Hansenne, M., & Christophe, V.J. (2023). Further Evidences of the role of Personality on Affective Forecasting. Polish Psychological Bulletin.

Hoerger, M., Quirk, S. W., Lucas, R. E., & Carr, T. H. (2009). Immune neglect in affective forecasting. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.001

Hoerger, M., Chapman, B., & Duberstein, P. (2016). Realistic affective forecasting: The role of personality. ,Cognition & emotion, 30,(7), 1304–1316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1061481

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making, 4, 99-127. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814417358_0006

Klausen, S. H., Emiliussen, J., Christiansen, R., Hasandedic-Dapo, L., & Engelsen, S. (2021). The many faces of hedonic adaptation. Philosophical Psychology, 35(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2021.1967308

Lench, H. C., Safer, M. A., & Levine, L. J. (2011). Focalism and the underestimation of future emotion: When it's worse than imagined. Emotion, 11(2), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022792

Lopes, M. P., da Palma, P. J., Garcia, B. C., & Gomes, C. (2016). Training for happiness: the impacts of different positive exercises on hedonism and eudaemonia. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 744. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2407-y

Marroquín, B., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2015). Event prediction and affective forecasting in depressive cognition: Using emotion as information about the future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2015.34.2.117

Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B., & Prévost, C. (2015). The ecology of human fear: survival optimization and the nervous system. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00055

Noguchi, K., Gohm, C. L., & Dalsky, D. J. (2006). Cognitive tendencies of focusing on positive and negative information. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 891–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.09.008

Padesky, C. A., & Mooney, K. A. (2012). Strengths-based cognitive-behavioural therapy: a four-step model to build resilience. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 19(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1795

Preston, S., Anderson, A., Robertson, D. J., Shephard M. P., & Huhe, N. (2021) Correction: Detecting fake news on Facebook: The role of emotional intelligence. PLOS ONE 16(10): e0258719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258719

Riaz, A., & Syed, S. (2022). Impact of Emotional Intelligence on Financial Effectiveness: Mediating Role of Overconfidence Bias. Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences.17-28. https://doi.org/10.34091/AJSS.15.1.02

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000091

Sevdalis, N., & Harvey, N. (2009). Reducing the impact bias in judgments of post-decisional affect: Distraction or task interference? Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003867  

Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., Levine, L. J., & Testa, S. (2010). Appraisals, emotions and emotion regulation: An integrative approach. Motivation and emotion, 34(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-010-9155-z

van der Schalk, J., Kuppens, T., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. S. (2015). The social power of regret: the effect of social appraisal and anticipated emotions on fair and unfair allocations in resource dilemmas. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 144(1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000036

Watson, J.B. (1998). Behaviorism (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351314329

Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological bulletin, 138(4), 775–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in experimental social psychology, 35, 345–411. Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01006-2

Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective Forecasting: Knowing What to Want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.

Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.821

Wood, S. L., & Bettman, J. R. (2007). Predicting happiness: How normative feeling rules influence (and even reverse) durability bias. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70028-1

Yechiam, E., & Hochman, G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029383

External links

• Hedonic Adaptation: Why You Are Not Happier (Verywell Mind)
• Why do we overestimate our emotional reactions to future events? (The Decision Lab)