In the past few years the field of emotions has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers. A major reason for this is the ability of emotions to influence human motivation and actions by influencing the cognitive processes of the brain (Latham, 2007). Research by Kahneman and Tversky (1973) has for long suggested that not all human decisions are rational in nature. A significant part of irrational decision making can be attributed to the play of emotions in human beings. Thus, it is interesting to see how emotions interfere with the thinking process of individuals. The paper specifically attempts to view the effect of positive emotions i.e. feeling of happiness, joy and/or enthusiasm on the decision making process in human beings. In order to achieve this, two opposite scientific views in the form of a critique and a refutation are presented to understand the utility of positive emotions in decision making.

1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
Term Paper Assignment
Desires and Decisions
A look into how positive emotions influence decision making in people
Submitted to
Prof. Neharika Vohra
In Partial fulfillment of the requirements of course
Psychology
Submitted on: September 27th, 2014
By
Shiva Kakkar

2. The page has been intentionally left blank

3. Desires and Decisions
A look into how positive emotions influence decision making in people
In the past few years the field of emotions has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers. A major
reason for this is the ability of emotions to influence human motivation and actions by influencing the
cognitive processes of the brain (Latham, 2007). Research by Kahneman and Tversky (1973) has for long
suggested that not all human decisions are rational in nature. A significant part of irrational decision
making can be attributed to the play of emotions in human beings. Thus, it is interesting to see how
emotions interfere with the thinking process of individuals. The paper specifically attempts to view the
effect of positive emotions i.e. feeling of happiness, joy and/or enthusiasm on the decision making process
in human beings. In order to achieve this, two opposite scientific views in the form of a critique and a
refutation are presented to understand the utility of positive emotions in decision making.
‘It is human nature to think wisely and act absurdly’
– Anatole France
During the past few decades, the field of I/O psychology has witnessed a period of tremendous
turmoil and upheaval in terms of managerial concepts. For a large part of history, managerial
thought was deeply entrenched into the fundamentals of behaviorism. There has been an
immense focus on the role of reasoning and cognition in human action and decision making.
F.W.Taylor’s ‘Principles of scientific management’ is a prime example of this. Taylor believed
that humans were inherently rational and logical beings (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Zerbe, 2000) who
would work towards a task without question on being suitably incentivized (or penalized). This
thinking led to a systematic simplification of jobs - a ‘division of labor’ in order to increase
efficiency and boost production. The whole system never accounted for the emotional experience
of individuals in the workplace. Rather, emotions were considered to be unnecessary obstacles to
productive work behavior (Muchinsky, 2000).
The re-emergence of the field of emotions as a stream of study came through in the 1990’s when
Daniel Goleman published his seminal work ‘Emotional Intelligence’. The highlight of the book
was the fact that emotions could help in understanding people and making better decisions in an

4. organizational setup. Subsequently, a wide variety of research has been conducted in the field to
decode the complex puzzle of emotions. Another reason for this sudden development of interest
in the field of emotions is due to the inability of cognition to explain certain aspects of divergent
job behavior (Latham, 2007). While performance can be attributed to cognitive abilities, the
relationship does not hold true for non-performance (Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002). Two
similarly qualified and competent individuals, getting similar rewards can deliver varying
degrees of performance. What makes this difference is their orientation and attitude towards the
job. Attitude is nothing but a function of emotions and feelings (Howard M Weiss & Beal,
2005).
This inquiry into the hindrances to job performance has shed new light on the role of emotions in
driving cognitive processes in human beings. Researchers agree that emotions form an important
part of human thinking (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). In the past few years, decision making
has been seen and studied as a scientific discipline. Researchers have acknowledged that decision
making is a complex process that is not necessarily rational. A significant contribution came
from Tversky and Kahneman (1974) who studied the nature and scope of irrationality in decision
making in economics.
The objective of this paper is to study the role of positive emotions in decision making and task
judgments at work. To get a holistic view, the paper is divided into two parts. The first part
builds an argument against the utility of positive emotions in decision making. The prevailing
scientific literature is consolidated and presented to this effect. The second part of the paper
refutes the critique laid against the utility of positive emotions and builds up a defense. The
position taken by OB and psychology researchers is cited and evidence is provided to counter the
critique. Finally, the paper attempts to reconcile the two positions and derive key insights from
the arguments covered in the paper.
The Basics - Affect, mood, emotions and cognition
Before attempting to understand the role of emotions in decision making, it is necessary to define
the three closely associated concepts of affect, mood and emotions. According to Frijda (1986)
‘mood’ and ‘emotions’ differ in terms of object directedness and response. Emotions are directed
towards an object (like a person or a task) while mood may not be directed towards any object.

5. Emotions are generally a response to a particular event, while mood is a general feeling of well-being
that persists over a period of time (Basch & Fisher, 1998). Moods are passive, less intense
and sustain for a longer time whereas emotions are active, intense but persist for a shorter
duration of time. ‘Affect’ is an umbrella term encapsulating both mood and emotions. Emotional
experience of any kind is termed as ‘Affective experience’ (Howard M. Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996).
While affect and cognition are distinct concepts, researchers argue that the production of
emotions itself is a function of cognition (Reeve, 2005). On encountering a situation, an
individual ‘appraises’ the situation. According to Magda Arnold (as cited in Reeve, 2005)
‘appraisal’ is the interpretation and evaluation of various characteristics of the situation which
leads to the elicitation of certain emotions in response. Therefore, it is not the situation in itself
but the appraisal of the situation that elicits emotions. Hence, cognitive appraisal precedes the
elicitation of emotions. On the other hand, once emotions are produced, the affective component
is introduced into the thinking process, which in-turn influences the evaluation of the situation or
object (Forgas, 1995). This phenomenon can be understood by the concept of ‘affect-as-information’
explained in the next section.
Affect-as-information
Decision making is a complex process that operates at various cognitive, emotional and
psychological levels. The role of emotions (affect) in decision making and judgment can be
understood by the concept of ‘affect-as-information’ (Clore, Gasper, & Garvin, 2001; Schwarz,
2011). According to the theory, before making a judgment an individual looks for emotional cues
to reach at a decision. He or she may ask, ‘How do I feel about this situation (or object)?’
Through this the individual attempts to seek ‘information’ pertaining to the situation (or object).
The person receives an emotional response to this query (affective response) which can be
positive or negative in nature. The (positive or negative) response in turn, leads to an evaluation
of the situation (or object) as being positive or negative. Schwarz (2000) terms this as ‘mood
congruent processing’ as the prevailing affective state (mood) contributes to the decision making
process by influencing the interpretation of presented information. The problem with mood
congruent processing is that it tends to influence a person in overestimating (in case of positive
emotions) or underestimating (in case of negative emotions) the likelihood of outcomes as per

6. his or her expectation (Johnson & Tversky, 1983). This problem arises because mood-congruent
processing depends upon other extraneous factors that are not directly related to the situation at
hand. A person in a bad mood is more likely to take a pessimistic view of the situation than a
person in a good mood. The mood itself may have resulted from another incident throughout the
day (for ex. an argument with the boss). The individual is completely unaware that emotions
activated in one situation are influencing his or her judgment in another situation (Johnson &
Tversky, 1983; Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003). This eventually results into an unrealistic and
ultimately incorrect estimation of outcomes.
The relationship between affective state and its impact on decision making has been repeatedly
studied and replicated in various psychological experiments. In an experiment by Clore and
Huntsinger (2007), a telephonic survey on life satisfaction was conducted with participants. The
calls to the participants were either made on bright-sunny days or cold-rainy days. Before asking
the survey question, the respondents were subtly asked about the weather prevailing that day.
This preceding question was asked to deliberately set a positive or negative affective tone and to
check whether it impacts the response to the life satisfaction question. The researchers found that
cold-rainy days decreased the life satisfaction scores of people, while bright-sunny days
increased them. A larger and more complex version of the experiment was replicated by
Hirshleifer and Shumway (as cited in Schwarz, 2011) wherein the researchers observed a reliable
influence of weather on stock market return in 26 countries. It was found that the market was
more likely to go up if the city hosting the stock exchange experienced a sunny day. A likely
reason for this is that the speculation behavior of the traders changed with respect to the weather.
Processing errors - Overestimation and underestimation of outcomes
The overestimation and underestimation of outcomes are fundamentally processing errors that
lead to faulty inferences. There is a high amount of error (overestimation) associated specifically
with positive emotions. According to Schwarz (2000), this is due to the use of a ‘heuristic
processing strategy’ that forms the basis for positive affect induced judgments. In heuristic
processing strategy, pre-existing knowledge structures (called scripts) are utilized in making
decisions. Scripts are nothing but heuristics formed on the basis of knowledge attained from
similar situations encountered in the past. Tversky and Kahneman’s (1974) have also pointed out
the extensive use of heuristics as a ‘short-cut’ in decision making. According to them, three

7. heuristics are employed in making judgments: 1. Availability (of information), 2.
Representativeness (similarity of information), 3. Adjustment (similarity with respect to the
anchor set by the encountered situation). This bears correspondence to Bless (1996) and Forgas
(1998) proposition that heuristics reduce cognitive load on the brain and make it easier to take
decisions (i.e. a short-cut). Schwarz (2000) takes Tversky and Kanheman’s idea further by
suggesting that positive affect leads to a greater use of heuristics than negative affect.
A good mood (positive affect) tries to influence a person to form inferences based on heuristics.
It informs the individual that the situation is favorable and a judgment can be taken based on
known information, reducing the cognitive load on the brain. Reduction in cognitive load is
desirable as it preserves the state of ‘happiness’ (positive affect) being experienced by the
individual (Bless et al., 1996; Forgas, 1998). In the process, specific details peculiar to the
situation may be avoided or ignored. This avoidance of information leads to inferential errors
and misattribution of causal factors which results in erroneous decisions.
Unlike positive affect, negative affect leads to a ‘systematic processing strategy’ (Schwarz,
2000). According to Schwarz, a person in a sad mood is less likely to rely on pre-existing
knowledge structures (scripts). This is due to less confidence and increased paranoia regarding
the situation resulting from the prevailing negative mood (Bless et al., 1996; Forgas, 1998). This
results into a processing strategy which increases focus on specific information at hand and
dissuades the individual from relying on previous experiences (Schwarz, 2011). Though this may
consume more time in making decisions, negative affect is more desirable for decision making as
it facilitates extensive processing and increased attention to details (Clore & Huntsinger, 2007).
Global and Local focus
The overestimation/underestimation of outcomes is also caused due to the impact of affective
state on attention focus. Positive affective state increases attention focus while negative affective
states narrow attention focus (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003). The narrow attention focus is
known as ‘local focus’ and the broad attention focus is known as ‘global focus’. According to
Gasper and Clore (2002), feelings of joy and happiness influence individuals to look at the larger
picture wherein small details are suppressed. This is because happier individuals rely on
heuristics and information not matching the available heuristic is considered insignificant and

8. consequently suppressed or ignored. On the other hand, individuals experiencing a negative
affective state pay more attention to details and have a higher ‘local focus’. As heuristics are not
relied upon, the individuals consider the situation or event as an isolated instance and look for
specific attributes to make decisions.
In an experiment by Forgas (as cited in Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003) individuals were asked to
select a team partner for accomplishing a certain task. The researchers found that individuals in a
negative affective state were more goal oriented and hence, selected partners based on their
abilities and personal attributes after many rounds of exchange. After initial interpersonal
exchanges, they remembered more about the shortcomings and negative features in their
potential partners. Contrary to this, individuals in positive affective states made rapid decisions
with fewer rounds of exchange and overlooked personal attributes which may have played a
crucial role in task accomplishment.
Priming and memorization
Due to the extreme reliance on scripts and pre-existing knowledge, positive affect results into
greater instances of bias. This bias occurs as a result of selective attention, encoding and retrieval
of information (Forgas, 1995). Positive affect tends to increase the individual’s confidence in
existing information and increases the likelihood of relying on it (Isbell, 2004). This leads to the
knowledge of certain pre-existing notions being primed. The primed information is then
attributed by the mind to the object/situation. This results into incorrect decision making as
priming one piece of information impacts the processing of subsequent information (Forgas,
1995). Information consistent with the primed information is considered for decision making and
inconsistent information is ignored (Higgins, Bargh and Lombardi as cited in Forgas, 1995).
Another perplexing issue is that of false memorization and recall. According to Clore and
Storbeck (2005), positive affect tends to lure people into thinking that they already know the
information being presented. An example of this is when a group of participants is given a list of
words that include bed, pillow, rest, awake, dream, etc., they falsely recall and include the word
‘sleep’ when asked to reproduce the list. This is known as a ‘critical lure’. In the experiment
performed by Clore and Storbeck (2005), they found that people experiencing negative emotions
were less likely to fall for critical lures. This, they hypothesize, is because negative affect

9. triggers systematic item-specific processing that looks at specific attributes (local focus) rather
than drawing conclusions based on heuristics.
View: From the literature cited above, it can be said that positive affect due to its focus on
global factors, dependence on heuristics and increased bias, results into poor quality of
decisions and judgments.
If the arguments presented above are taken at face value, then organizations should be highly
mechanistic, adopt a tight command-and-control scheme of dictating tasks and giving little or no
autonomy to employees in achieving them. Organizations should then aim to create an
environment of negative affect wherein saturnine employees would make razor sharp decisions.
This scenario barely sounds practical or even advisable. Contrary to this, most progressive
organizations aim to make their workplaces cheerful and a pleasure to work in for their
employees. Organizations like 3M, Google have documented evidence of their success with their
employee friendly stance and highly positive work culture. The aim of the subsequent section is
to present a critique and develop a counter-view to the literature cited above regarding the role of
positive emotions in decision making.
Positive emotions – A Defense
A reason for the tirade against positive emotions is because psychology has traditionally focused
on ‘mental problems’ rather than ‘mental well-being’ of the human mind (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 as cited in Fredrickson, 2004). Due to this, Fredrickson (2004) argues,
the topic of negative emotions has invited more research than positive emotions. While studies
are true to point out the higher use of heuristics and pre-existing frameworks in decision making
among positively affected individuals, there are certain advantages too. First and foremost,
positive affect makes decision making a simpler and faster process. In an experiment by Isen and
Daubman (1987), participants were given a rating task and a sorting task. It was found that happy
or positively affected individuals were able to solve problems faster than the control or
negatively affected groups. The reason for this is that positive affect increased the ability to
categorize and form patterns among objects to be rated and/or sorted. After figuring out the
existence of a pattern the task was solved in minutes. The experiment is important because not
only does positive affect increase the use of heuristics, it plays an important part in the formation

10. of heuristics. In most job interviews, work experience is given significant weightage as an
attribute. It can be argued that a larger amount of work experience actually signifies a larger
amount of heuristics in the mind of the experience holder. Due to these heuristics, it is highly
likely that the holder would understand business (and organizational problems) better and take
better decisions as the individual would be well-versed with handling such issues.
Some researchers argue that positive emotions actually enhance cognitive functioning. In a series
of gambling experiments by Trope and Neter (as cited in Aspinwall, 1998), the researchers found
that positive emotions tend to increase attention towards negative information. Isen and Nygren
(1988) in another series of gambling experiments, found that though the risk propensity of
participants experiencing positive affect was indeed high, they were much more cautious about
anticipated losses and turned averse when the stakes got high. In the literature cited above, it was
argued that individuals experiencing positive affect tend to maintain their state of happiness for
longer periods of time and hence, attempt at reducing their cognitive load using heuristics (Bless
et al., 1996; Forgas, 1998). While this holds true, it is equally arguable that such individuals are
more aware about the stakes and the estimated loss they might suffer if they lost the bet. Hence,
in order to maintain their state of happiness, individuals in positive affective state turn risk averse
when the stakes become higher (Isen et al., 1988). According to Isen (as cited in Aspinwall,
1998) negative information is avoided only when it has relatively low costs. If the negative
information is urgent or essential, positively affected individuals would expend the cognitive
efforts to parse this information. This is congruent to the view that positive affect enhances
global focus but as a result, it also enhances the level of awareness and lookout for other negative
cues in the information.
Another popular proposition is that individuals experiencing negative affect make better
decisions because of local focus and detailed attention to the information being presented to them
(Huntsinger, Clore, & Bar-Anan, 2010). In an experiment to predict the impact of affective
disposition on managerial tasks, the researchers found that none of the proposed views in favor
of negative affect were upheld (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). The data was collected from
MBA students experiencing negative and positive emotions and their performance was measured
on various management simulation exercises requiring decision making on diverse
organizational and business aspects. As compared to the group experiencing positive affect, the

11. negatively affected group fared poorly in utilizing and decoding information as well as forming
any linkages required for problem solving and making the right decisions. The positively
affected group displayed higher rate of success and more accurate information processing in all
simulation exercises (Staw et al., 1994). This proves that there exists a severe disconnect
between laboratory derived results and practical situations.
Illusion of control and task persistence
A common critique related to false recall and memorization attached with positive affect is that it
gives a false ‘illusion of control’. Due to a reliance on heuristics and a predisposition that the
knowledge pertaining to the situation is already known, the individual tends to overestimate his
or her control over the situation (Schwarz, 2000). A counter view is that though happy
individuals do overestimate their control over the situation, it increases their confidence in the
decisions they take and increases their persistence to complete the task (Staw et al., 1994).
Secondly, due to higher levels of confidence, such individuals are more likely to take upon
challenging and uncertain tasks. A study by Seligman and Schulman (as cited in Staw et al.,
1994) on 103 life insurance agents on their dispositional optimism found that positively oriented
insurance agents were able to sell twice the number of policies as compared to negatively
oriented insurance agents. Both categories of agents had to take decisions regarding the nature of
clients to be pursued and face repeatedly encounter rejection or failure from clients. Yet, it turns
out that positively affected individuals made more accurate decisions as evident from their sales
figures. A possible reason for this is that positive affect results into a higher sense of control
wherein the individual makes him/herself responsible for success of failure. Depending upon the
result, s/he keeps modifying the strategy until the goal is reached (high task persistence).
Broaden and Build theory of emotions
The Broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions was proposed by Fredrickson (2004) who
proposed that positive emotions increase a person’s awareness of surroundings and helps the
person build internal (mental) resources that augment cognitive ability. According to Fredrickson
(2004), positive emotions broaden people’s momentary thought–action repertoires and build
their enduring personal resources. The concept thought-action repertoire is similar to formation
of heuristics. Positive affect motivates people to take up new challenges, explore new ideas and

12. try out new things. They do such things in order to heighten their sense of pleasure and happiness
(Fredrickson, 2004; Staw et al., 1994). During such mental excursions, they accumulate
knowledge about different scenarios and situations. During times of adversity, when an actual
difficult situation comes in front of them, the information gathered during the heightened
positive affective state is put to use (like a heuristic) in order to solve the problem. This
phenomenon is seen across various species. Acts like chasing, running, jumping and catapulting
are common in humans and animals. But in times of distress, for example that of avoiding a
predator, these playful activities are re-enacted in order to escape and survive (Fredrickson,
2004). While avoiding a predator is a negative affective state, an animal (or person) is able to act
and make quick decisions that assist in making an escape only because of the knowledge attained
during positive affective states. The thoughts formed during playful activities result into sincere
actions during dire situations and a collection of such knowledge structures is termed as a
‘thought-action repertoire’.
Scope of attention
The increased awareness of surroundings as suggested by the ‘broaden and build’ theory is
indicative of the increased scope of attention that results from positive affective states.
According to Isen (1988), positive affect produces a broad, flexible and diverse cognitive
organization which enables a person to integrate diverse material, thus enhancing the decision
making process by considering the impact of multiple variables. A study by Losada (as cited in
Fredrickson, 2004) gives concrete evidence of this proposition. Losada studied 60 management
teams in 1 hour meetings to develop organizational strategy. Trained raters coded the response of
the audience to the speaker as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ depending upon whether the speaker was
appreciated or rebuked in the meeting. Later, Losada used this identify performance on three
parameters: profitability, customer satisfaction and evaluation by peers. A non-linear equation
model was developed to capture the interaction patterns between the different levels of team
performance. Losada found that positive feelings were significantly related to (i) broader
behavioral repertoires (ii) greater flexibility and resilience to adversity and (iii) optimal
functioning or flourishing.
In spite of the popularity of the view that positive affect hampers effective decision making,
there are researches that refute the said claim. Staw (1994) suggests that happy individuals don’t

13. process complete information only if it’s not specific or detrimental in nature. Miu (2008) found
that negative affect significantly impaired decision making in the long run. The researchers used
the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) to determine the relationship between ‘Trait anxiety’ (TA) and
decision making. TA refers to attention, memory and interpretation differences among
individuals to information (specifically averse or negative information). They found that anxiety
caused severe lapses in decision making by impairing the ability to select relevant cues for
making decisions from the presented information. Though the participants possessed a local
focus and attention to specific information, high anxiety led them to focus onto easily
understandable information rather than complex information necessary to make correct
decisions. Also, negative affect resulted into increased anticipatory stress which made
individuals more prone towards making erroneous judgments (Miu et al., 2008).
Counter View: From the literature cited above, it cannot be conclusively said that positive
affect results into poor decision making or judgment. On the contrary, positive affect broadens
the scope of attention which is helpful in consolidating more information and making
informed judgments considering diverse variables.
Conclusion
The arguments presented above are indicative of the raging debate over the nature and
implication of positive emotions on decision making and judgment. While critiques argue that
positive emotions extensively rely on heuristics in decision making which leads to bias,
proponents argue that positive emotional experiences help consolidate diverse information which
eventually leads to the development of better heuristics and refined decision making. The
argument is that heuristics are ‘tricks of the trade’ – a systematic development of patterns that
assist an individual in making decisions even in adverse situations. Negative emotions may result
into increased attention to detail, but processing details and reaching to conclusions are learned
during positive affective experiences. On the other hand, it is equally true that highly positive
feelings like enthusiasm, joy may result into carelessness due to avoidance of critical details in
order to maintain the positive affective experience.
Another view forwarded by researchers is that positive affective experience will not interfere
with decision making in cases where the task bears no implications on the person him/herself.

14. Loewenstein (2003) makes a valid point in this regard. He illustrates this by evaluating the
process of solving a mathematical problem. Loewenstein suggests that a mathematical task like
solving a problem cannot illicit any emotions in itself but the persisting state of positive affective
experience would motivate the individual to find creative ways of solving the problem. Negative
affective experience, on the other hand, may lead to anxiety and nervousness impairing the
individual’s ability to solve the problem and reach to a solution.
An underestimated aspect of the debate is the ‘affective orientation’ of the individual (Booth‐
Butterfield & Booth‐Butterfield, 1990). Emotions are highly intimate experiences which differ
from individual to individual. Not all individuals possess the same spectrum and breadth of
emotions. Some individuals are highly vulnerable to positive or negative emotions and may
exhibit a greater tendency to process information in a biased fashion. On the other hand, certain
individuals are inherently effective at regulating their emotions and are more capable in making
objective judgments. This susceptibility/insusceptibility to emotions is termed as the ‘affective
orientation’ of the individual and has a significant impact on his or her cognitive processes
(Booth‐Butterfield & Booth‐Butterfield, 1990).
It can be inferred from the views stated in the paper that positive emotions are helpful in making
decisions involving creativity and complex thinking. The highly competitive environment
persisting in organizations today requires such thinking and justifies the organizations’ aspiration
in creating happier workplaces. It would be interesting to see whether the success of
organizations like Google and 3M can be significantly linked to their being happier workplaces.
It can be concluded that emotions are a complex matter and research is far from decoding the
finer aspects of the subject. The paper attempted to present two different views on the subject
from the perspective of cognitive thinking and decision making ability. The question as to how
emotions augment or impair decision making doesn’t have clear cut answers. However, the
awareness about these aspects may give valuable insights into the human mind and whether it
can be taught the art of decision making.

15. References
Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: Research,
theory and practice Westport: Quorum Books.
Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation &
Emotion, 22(1), 1-32.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (1998). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work
events and associated emotions. School of Business Discussion Papers, 65.
Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C., & Wölk, M. (1996). Mood and the
use of scripts: Does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness? Journal of personality
and social psychology, 71(4), 665.
Booth‐Butterfield, M., & Booth‐Butterfield, S. (1990). Conceptualizing affect as information in
communication production. Human Communication Research, 16(4), 451-476.
Clore, G. L., Gasper, K., & Garvin, E. (2001). Affect as information.
Clore, G. L., & Huntsinger, J. R. (2007). How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought.
Trends in cognitive sciences, 11(9), 393-399.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (aim). Psychological
bulletin, 117(1), 39.
Forgas, J. P. (1998). On being happy and mistaken: Mood effects on the fundamental attribution
error. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(2), 318.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical
transactions-royal society of london series b biological sciences, 1367-1378.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions: Cambridge University Press.
Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local
processing of visual information. Psychological science, 13(1), 34-40.
Huntsinger, J. R., Clore, G. L., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2010). Mood and global–local focus: Priming a
local focus reverses the link between mood and global–local processing. Emotion, 10(5),
722.
Isbell, L. M. (2004). Not all happy people are lazy or stupid: Evidence of systematic processing
in happy moods. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 341-349.

16. Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative
problem solving. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(6), 1122.
Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). Influence of positive affect on the subjective
utility of gains and losses: It is just not worth the risk. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 55(5), 710.
Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 45(1), 20.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review,
80(4), 237.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of
affective science, 619(642), 3.
Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the
structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior New York: Jossey - Bass.
Miu, A. C., Heilman, R. M., & Houser, D. (2008). Anxiety impairs decision-making:
Psychophysiological evidence from an iowa gambling task. Biological psychology, 77(3),
353-358.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 801.
Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion: Wiley.
Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 433-
440.
Schwarz, N. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology,
1, 289-308.
Seo, M.-G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423-439.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable
outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51-71.
Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2005). With sadness comes accuracy; with happiness, false memory
mood and the false memory effect. Psychological science, 16(10), 785-791.

17. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Weiss, H. M., & Beal, D. J. (2005). Reflections on affective events theory. Research on emotion
in organizations, 1, 1-21.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1.

18. The page has been intentionally left blank