Roles of cognitive load and self‐relevance during emotional information searching on decision‐making

Abstract

Older adults have been found to favor positive stimuli over negative stimuli; further, developing a negative preference may be a cognitively demanding process. In the present study, we focused on the joint effects task self‐relevance and cognitive load have on older adults' emotional information preferences when performing decision‐making. To examine this, we used multi‐attribute decision tasks and process‐tracing procedure to measure their searching process. The study composed of a 2 (age: young/old) × 2 (cognitive load: load/non‐load) × 3 (attribute valence: positive/neutral/negative) × 3 (task self‐relevance: high/medium/low) mixed design. Sixty‐one young adults and 62 older adults viewed 5 (alternatives) × 5 (attributes) decision matrices that contained positive, negative, and neutral information, with the total views and mean time spent viewing each different valence (positive, negative, and neutral information) set as dependent variables. The results indicated that both young and old adults have no emotional information preference in regard to self‐relevance. When under no cognitive load, both positive and negative information were viewed more than neutral information; however, under cognitive load, preference for negative information decreased; this effect size was more robust in older adults. There was also a main effect of self‐relevance on total views and mean checking time, with attributes concerning higher self‐relevance tasks being more likely to attract attention. Older adults exhibited a consistent hedonic focus, even in highly self‐relevant contexts; however, this effect disappeared under cognitive load. Overall, the findings suggest that cognitive resources play an important role in emotional information processing during decision processes.

Naming product colors with an individual’s identity and product evaluation: self-referencing as a mediator

“…For activities that depend on cognitive capacity, individual's reactions are predicated on the fit between accessible and needed resources (Hagtvedt, 2020;Li et al, 2020;Wen and Lurie, 2019). During a task, individuals can be distracted or interrupted, and such distractions may bring about increased cognitive demand that can alter the activity results (Arndt et al, 2021).…”

What, how and when? Exploring the influence of firm-generated content on popularity in a tourism destination context

“…In this respect, it is suggested that the same content may have different success depending on the day of publication; in other words, the day of publication moderates the influence of destination image attributes on content popularity. No previous research has examined this moderation, which can be explained based on the emotional salience effect (Li et al, 2020). This effect argues that individuals prefer to process emotional stimuli more than neutral ones and that they therefore devote more time to absorb them.…”

Do incidental positive emotions induce more optimistic expectations of decision outcomes? An empirical study from the perspective of event‐related potential

“…According to Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) prospect theory, framing affects risk preferences in decision‐making, with decision‐makers preferring risk avoidance in a gain framework but preferring risks in a loss framework. However, Li and Fu (2018) suggested that when individuals made decisions based on experience, information about gains or losses in the outcome of the previous decision did not significantly affect the decision‐maker's next decision, and that extreme gains or losses could have a greater impact on the decision‐maker. In addition, emotion is a factor that influences the framing effect.…”