Choice‐making, Expectations, and Treatment Positivity
How and When Choosing Shapes Aversive Experiences
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12166231 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jason P Rose (0000-0002-4250-2530, Department of Psychology University of Toledo OH USA, corresponding author), Andrew L Geers (0000-0002-4413-7098, Department of Psychology University of Toledo OH USA), Stephanie L Fowler (0000-0002-1259-0920, Department of Psychology University of Toledo OH USA), Heather M Rasinski (Department of Psychology University of Toledo OH USA) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-10 |
| Publication date | 2013-02-11 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0894-3257 • E-ISSN: 1099-0771 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/bdm.1775 |
| OpenAlex | W2166129958 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 48 |
Every day we use products and treatments with unknown but expected effects, such as using medication to manage pain. In many cases, we have a choice over which products or treatments to use; however, in other cases, people choose for us or choices are unavailable. Does choosing (versus not choosing) have implications for how a product or treatment is experienced? The current experiments examined the role of choice‐making in facilitating so‐called expectation assimilation effects —or situations in which a person's experiences (e.g., discomfort and pain) are evaluated in a manner consistent with their expectations. In Experiment 1, participants were initially exposed to a baseline set of aversive stimuli (i.e., sounds). Next, some participants were given expectations for two “treatments” (i.e., changes in screen display) that could ostensibly reduce discomfort. Critically, participants were either given a choice or not about which of the two treatments they preferred. Participants in a control condition were not provided with treatment expectations. Results revealed that discomfort experiences assimilated to expectations only when participants were provided with choice. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and provided evidence against the idea that demand characteristics and choice‐making unrelated to the core task (i.e., choices without associated expectations) could account for the results. Further, Experiment 2 showed that choosing reduced discomfort because of increased positivity about the treatment. Results are discussed in the context of extant research on choice‐making and expectation effects. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Choice set · Cognitive psychology · Context (archaeology · Econometrics · Economics · Extant taxon · Set (abstract data type · Task (project management · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Psychology · Psychology of Social Influence · Social Psychology
Cognitive dissonance
A Reflection and Evaluation Model of Comparative Thinking
Born to choose
A Comprehensive Review of the Placebo Effect
Reflecting on Six Decades of Selective Exposure Research
Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models
When choice is demotivating
Some general laws of human emotion
Rethinking the value of choice
You Can't Always Get What You Want
Affective Expectations and Information Gain
"Attributions of blame and coping in the "real world
Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression
Making choices impairs subsequent self-control
Negative reactions to increases in perceived personal control
Feeling validated versus being correct
Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question
Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives
The placebo effect
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,2 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2021 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |