Sensitivity to the Average and Summative Impact of Multiple Events: When “More is More” and When “More is Less”

Abstract

How people respond to positive and negative events is a basic question in psychology. Most theoretical accounts assume that the detrimental impact of negative life events is cumulative, resulting in a “more is more” effect. A similar assumption of “more is more” is typically used to predict the influence of multiple positive life events, people’s reactions to evaluative stimuli (e.g., an audience), and their judgments of consumer goods. In this article, we present a model that suggests that these conclusions do not capture the full picture of how people respond to multiple positive or negative events. More specifically, the averaging/summation (A/S) model does not predict that the underpinnings of individuals’ responses to positive or negative events always reflect summative affective impact. Rather, individuals’ responses often reflect the average value of events, as well as their summative value. We review research supporting the model’s predictions and discuss alternative theories and interpretations, such as the conservation of resource model, the peak–end rule, mental accounting, distraction, and assimilation/contrast. In addition, we suggest new avenues for research.

Can the negative footprint illusion be eliminated by summative priming?

“…This, together with previous research on the negative footprint illusion (Holmgren et al, 2018a;Holmgren et al, 2019) as well as research showing similar effects to the illusion (e.g. Chernev & Gal, 2010;Seta & Seta, 2020), argues for the mechanism that underpins the illusion as being one that involves an averaging bias. It should also be mentioned that people rate environmentally friendly objects as having a greater carbon footprint compared to zero impact objects, so the effect cannot arise simply because they think the "green" objects have no net effect on the environment (Andersson et al, submitted).…”