PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H R Pfister

Publications and source records attributed to H R Pfister.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks.

It is assumed that the mental representation of the causal structure of environmental risks, i.e., the type of cause and the type of potential consequence, determines which sort of action tendencies are formed. We propose a model of risk evaluation that includes consequentialist and deontological judgments as well as specific emotions as mediators of action tendencies. Four hundred participants took part in an experiment which presented scenario information about environmental risks. The scenarios differed with respect to (a) causation (human vs. natural cause; single vs. aggregate causation), (b) consequence (harm to self vs. harm to other people vs. harm to nature), and (c) geographical distance (proximate vs. distant). Participants indicated how much they preferred each of 31 prospective behaviors. Factor analyses yielded five types of action tendencies: help, aggression, escape, political action, and self-focus. The causal structure of the risks was systematically related to action tendencies, e.g., environmental risks that are caused by humans, and in particular those caused by a single human agent, elicit aggressive action tendencies. The findings conform that the perceived causal structure of a specific risk determines whether the focus is upon consequentialist or deontological judgments, which, in turn, elicit specific types of action tendency, mediated by emotions.

Adolescent↗

Instrumental or emotional evaluations: what determines preferences?

The present study investigated the separability of two evaluative aspects, instrumental and emotional utilities, and tested the hypothesis that situational context influences the relative impact of these evaluations in decision making. Twenty-nine subjects rank ordered eight options according to their preferences. The options were hypothetical prizes the subjects could win, either in a mail lottery (private context) or in a TV show (public context). Subjects rated all options on utility scales and indicated their emotional associations. It was hypothesized that in the private context condition subjects' preferences were more influenced by emotions, whereas due to justification demands, preferences were more influenced by instrumental considerations in the public context condition. A multidimensional preference analysis yielded two dimensions. The second of these dimensions distinguished between experimental conditions. An individual differences scaling analysis yielded significantly higher subject weights for the second dimension in the public context group. The first dimension could be interpreted as mapping positive versus negative emotions, whereas the second dimension reflected instrumental evaluations. Regression analyses indicate that both instrumental and emotional evaluations significantly contribute in predicting preferences, but that the relation between preferences and evaluative dimensions is only indirect.

Affect↗