simplified form of information processing. It further states that influences the outcome affect directly. In other words, both theories assume the judge to use his feelings as valid information about the situation that has to be judged. In both theories this is because the information processing has to be short and without much effort. The difference is that the only assumes to be used and the Affect Heuristic related affect Affect-as-Information mechanism holds that can be influential as well as Note that unrelated affect related affect. the idea of the mechanism is consistent with the findings from Tversky Affect-as-Information and Johnson and with the conclusion under the second question. Thus, it could be concluded that the difference between the two theories is not a real difference but a wrong assumption in the theory which need to take the influence of into account, Affect Heuristic unrelated affect too. In short, it can be concluded that the could adopt the theory of the Affect Heuristic mechanism to explain the effect of on risk perception. Again this unrelated affect leads to the next question. What are the differences between the AIM and the Affect Heuristic according to their understanding of the role of affect in judgement and perception and what do they have in common? Both theories assume it to be possible that the uses his affect as information about the goodness or badness of the stimulus. Slovic states that this is always the case, that the affect is related to the stimulus, and that the two modes of thinking work in parallel. The last assumption makes clear that he presumes fundamentally that there is one processing strategy, which uses two modes of thinking in parallel. This is the main difference to the AIM, which expects the judge to use context dependent processing strategies. Thereby Forgas tries to integrate different findings from research in one model. Depending on the context, the judge can use one of the four processing strategies, wherein only two offer the possibility of an
simplified form of information processing. It further states that affect influences the outcome directly. In other words, both theories assume the judge to use his feelings as valid information about the situation that has to be judged. In both theories this is because the information processing has to be short and without much effort. The difference is that the Affect Heuristic only assumes related affect to be used and the Affect-as-Information mechanism holds that unrelated affect can be influential as well as related affect. Note that the idea of the Affect-as-Information mechanism is consistent with the findings from Tversky and Johnson and with the conclusion under the second question. Thus, it could be concluded that the difference between the two theories is not a real difference but a wrong assumption in the Affect Heuristic theory which need to take the influence of unrelated affect into account, too. In short, it can be concluded that the Affect Heuristic could adopt the theory of the mechanism to explain the effect of unrelated affect on risk perception. Again this leads to the next question. What are the differences between the AIM and the Affect Heuristic according to their understanding of the role of affect in judgement and perception and what do they have in common? Both theories assume it to be possible that the uses his affect as information about the goodness or badness of the stimulus. Slovic states that this is always the case, that the affect is related to the stimulus, and that the two modes of thinking work in parallel. The last assumption makes clear that he presumes fundamentally that there is one processing strategy, which uses two modes of thinking in parallel. This is the main difference to the AIM, which expects the judge to use context dependent processing strategies. Thereby Forgas tries to integrate different findings from research in one model. Depending on the context, the judge can use one of the four processing strategies, wherein only two offer the possibility of an
Sander-S-S0119288-Bachelorthese.docx