Note on Faraji-Rad and Pham (2017) – Uncertainty Increases the Reliance on Affect in Decisions

Main Topic or Phenomenon Addressed

The paper investigates how psychological states of uncertainty influence decision-making, specifically by increasing reliance on affective inputs in judgments and decisions. It explores how uncertainty, as a mental state, amplifies the impact of emotions, moods, and other hedonic feelings on consumer behavior, compared to states of certainty.

Theoretical Construct or Framework

The core theoretical construct is psychological uncertainty, defined as a mental state characterized by a discrepancy between cognitive structures and perceptions, psychological discomfort, and a motivation to resolve this discrepancy (Kagan 1972; van den Bos 2009). The authors propose that uncertainty triggers a self-threatening state, increasing attention to the self and reliance on inputs closely linked to the self, particularly affective inputs. Affective inputs are defined as hedonically charged information with an emotional quality, providing a rapid “readout” of a stimulus’s motivational significance (Buck 1985). These include moods, specific emotions (e.g., disgust), and integral feelings (e.g., aesthetic appeal).

The framework posits that uncertainty enhances the diagnosticity of affective inputs due to their intimate connection to the self and high subjective validity (Zajonc 1980; Denzin 1983). This is contrasted with certainty, where reliance on affective inputs is reduced, and nonaffective or heuristic cues may dominate.

Key Findings

1. Increased Affective Influence Under Uncertainty: Across six studies, priming uncertainty (vs. certainty) consistently amplified the effects of affective inputs on judgments and decisions. For example:

   • Study 1: Uncertainty increased the influence of a commercial’s musical soundtrack pleasantness on behavioral intentions (e.g., book purchases).
   • Study 2: Uncertainty heightened the impact of a TV’s visual attractiveness on willingness to pay (WTP), but not nonaffective attributes (e.g., HDMI slots).
   • Studies 3A–3C: Uncertainty increased preference for affectively superior (vs. functionally superior) options (e.g., apartments, laptops, cars).
   • Study 4: Both positive and negative uncertainty increased preference for affectively superior options.
   • Study 5: Uncertainty amplified the effect of disgust on WTP.
   • Study 6: Uncertainty increased mood influence on product evaluations but decreased reliance on nonaffective heuristic cues (e.g., endorser expertise).

2. Specificity of Affective Reliance: Uncertainty specifically enhances reliance on affective inputs, not all information or heuristic cues (Studies 2, 5, 6).

3. Independence from Mood Regulation: The effect is not driven by negative mood alleviation, as uncertainty priming did not alter mood, and effects held for both positive and negative uncertainty (Study 4).

4. Orthogonality to Heuristic Processing: Uncertainty increases affective reliance independently of heuristic vs. systematic processing, as it reduces reliance on nonaffective heuristic cues (Study 6).

Boundary Conditions or Moderators

The paper identifies several boundary conditions and moderators:

1. Valence of Uncertainty (Study 4): Both positive (e.g., uncertainty about a gift) and negative (e.g., flight delays) uncertainty increase affective reliance, suggesting the effect is driven by uncertainty itself, not its emotional tone.
2. Type of Affective Input (Studies 1–6): The effect applies to both general (e.g., mood, pleasantness) and specific emotions (e.g., disgust), as well as peripheral (e.g., soundtrack) and central (e.g., apartment aesthetics) affective inputs.
3. Centrality of Affect (Studies 1–6): The effect holds regardless of whether the affective input is incidental or integral to the decision, indicating robustness across affective contexts.
4. Heuristic vs. Systematic Processing (Study 6): Uncertainty increases affective reliance but decreases reliance on nonaffective heuristic cues, distinguishing it from general heuristic processing.

These moderators suggest that the phenomenon is robust across various affective inputs and uncertainty types but is distinct from broader information processing tendencies.

Building on, Extending, or Challenging Previous Work

The paper builds on and extends prior literature while challenging certain assumptions:

• Building on Affect-as-Information Theory: It extends Schwarz and Clore’s (1983) work on feelings as information by identifying uncertainty as a situational determinant of affective diagnosticity, beyond representativeness and relevance (Pham 1998).
• Extending Self-Threat and Self-Affirmation Literature: It leverages Hogg (2007) and McGregor et al. (2001) to argue that uncertainty threatens the self, increasing reliance on self-related inputs like affect, which aligns with Zajonc’s (1980) view of affect as self-referential.
• Challenging Heuristic Processing Assumptions: It challenges Tiedens and Linton (2001) and Vaughn and Weary (2003), who suggest uncertainty promotes systematic processing and reduces heuristic reliance. Study 6 shows that uncertainty decreases nonaffective heuristic cue reliance while increasing affective reliance, resolving this apparent conflict.
• Extending Consumer Decision-Making Literature: It adds to Pham (1998) and Avnet et al. (2012) by introducing situational uncertainty as a novel determinant of affective reliance, complementing individual traits like promotion focus or trust in feelings.

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper’s primary contribution is identifying situational uncertainty as a new class of determinants of affective reliance in consumer judgments. It establishes that psychological uncertainty, by threatening the self, amplifies the diagnosticity of affective inputs due to their self-relevance and subjective validity. This adds a fourth dimension to the determinants of affective reliance—beyond representativeness, relevance, and individual traits—focusing on situational context. It also clarifies that this effect is distinct from heuristic processing, offering a nuanced understanding of how uncertainty shapes decision-making processes.

Major Managerial Implication

Marketers should leverage affective cues in uncertain environments to influence consumer decisions. For instance, during economic uncertainty or product launches with unknown outcomes, emphasizing emotional appeals (e.g., aesthetically pleasing designs, mood-enhancing advertisements) can sway consumer preferences more effectively than functional attributes. Retailers might prioritize sensory experiences (e.g., store ambiance) or emotional branding in campaigns targeting consumers facing uncertainty, such as first-time buyers or those in volatile markets.

Theoretical Factors Not Explored

Several theoretical factors that could moderate the relationship between uncertainty and affective reliance were not explored, offering avenues for future research:

1. Decision Stakes: The studies used low-stakes, hypothetical decisions. High-stakes decisions (e.g., buying a house) might reduce affective reliance if uncertainty prompts a rational mindset, or increase it if high stakes heighten self-threat.
2. Integral vs. Incidental Uncertainty: The studies primed incidental uncertainty, separate from the decision. Integral uncertainty (e.g., uncertainty about product performance) might alter affective reliance, potentially reducing it if consumers seek objective data to resolve decision-specific uncertainty.
3. Uncertainty-Associated Emotions: Emotions like anxiety or hope, linked to uncertainty appraisals (Ellsworth and Smith 1988a), might reduce affective reliance if they signal low diagnosticity, contrasting with emotions like disgust.
4. Cultural Orientation: Individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures might moderate the effect, as self-focused attention under uncertainty may be stronger in individualistic cultures, amplifying affective reliance.
5. Cognitive Load: High cognitive load might interact with uncertainty, either enhancing affective reliance by limiting systematic processing or reducing it by overwhelming emotional processing capacity.
6. Temporal Orientation: Future vs. past orientation could moderate the effect, as uncertainty about the future might heighten affective reliance more than uncertainty about past events, due to greater self-relevance.

Reference

Faraji-Rad, Ali and Michel Tuan Pham (2017), “Uncertainty Increases the Reliance on Affect in Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (1), 1–21.