Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mood and Judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM)

Mood and Judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM) Evidence for the role ofaffective states in social judgments is reviewed, and a new integrative theory, the affectinfusion model (AIM), is proposed as a comprehensive explanation of these effects. The AIM,based on a multiprocess approach to social judgments, identifies 4 alternative judgmentalstrategies: (a) direct access, (b) motivated, (c) heuristic, and (d) substantive processing.The model predicts that the degree of affect infusion into judgments varies along a processingcontinuum, such that judgments requiring heuristic or substantive processing are more likely tobe infused by affect than are direct access or motivated judgments. The role of target, judge,and situational variables in recruiting high- or low-infusionjudgmental strategies isconsidered, and empirical support for the model is reviewed. The relationship between the AIMand other affect-cognitiontheories is discussed, and implications for future research areoutlined. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychological Bulletin American Psychological Association

Mood and Judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM)

Forgas, Joseph P.
Psychological Bulletin , Volume 117 (1): 28 – Jan 1, 1995
Download PDF
28 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/mood-and-judgment-the-affect-infusion-model-aim-ZscMcODxaL

References (179)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0033-2909
eISSN
1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Evidence for the role ofaffective states in social judgments is reviewed, and a new integrative theory, the affectinfusion model (AIM), is proposed as a comprehensive explanation of these effects. The AIM,based on a multiprocess approach to social judgments, identifies 4 alternative judgmentalstrategies: (a) direct access, (b) motivated, (c) heuristic, and (d) substantive processing.The model predicts that the degree of affect infusion into judgments varies along a processingcontinuum, such that judgments requiring heuristic or substantive processing are more likely tobe infused by affect than are direct access or motivated judgments. The role of target, judge,and situational variables in recruiting high- or low-infusionjudgmental strategies isconsidered, and empirical support for the model is reviewed. The relationship between the AIMand other affect-cognitiontheories is discussed, and implications for future research areoutlined.

Journal

Psychological Bulletin – American Psychological Association

Published: Jan 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.