PVC-LOT-004-D-137

This article discusses the role of embodiment in judgment and choice to (a) attain clarity on conceptual and methodological issues by presenting a literature review of prior empirical research on embodiment, (b) gain an integrative view on the topic of embodiment in judgment and choice by proposing somatic marker theory as a unifying conceptual framework for bridging cognition and affect in terms of embodiment, and (c) discuss and clarify ideas and directions for further research on the topic

Qualitative analysis of how patients decide that they want risk-reducing mastectomy, and the implications for surgeons in responding to emotionally-motivated patient requests

Objective Contemporary approaches to medical decision-making advise that clinicians should respect patients’ decisions. However, patients’ decisions are often shaped by heuristics, such as being guided by emotion, rather than by objective risk and benefit. Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) decisions focus this dilemma sharply. RRM reduces breast cancer (BC) risk, but is invasive and can have iatrogenic consequences. Previous evidence suggests that emotion guides patients’ decision-making about RRM. We interviewed patients to better understand how they made decisions about RRM, using findings to consider how clinicians could ethically respond to their decisions. Methods Qualitative face-to-face interviews with 34 patients listed for RRM surgery and two who had decided against RRM. Results Patients generally did not use objective risk estimates or, indeed, consider risks and benefits of RRM. Instead emotions guided their decisions: they chose RRM because they feared BC and wanted to do ‘all they could’ to prevent it. Most therefore perceived RRM to be the ‘obvious’ option and made the decision easily. However, many recounted extensive post-decisional deliberation, generally directed towards justifying the original decision. A few patients deliberated before the decision because fears of surgery counterbalanced those of BC. Conclusion Patients seeking RRM were motivated by fear of BC, and the need to avoid potential regret for not doing all they could to prevent it. We suggest that choices such as that for RRM, which are made emotionally, can be respected as autonomous decisions, provided patients have considered risks and benefits. Drawing on psychological theory about how people do make decisions, as well as normative views of how they should, we propose that practitioners can guide consideration of risks and benefits even, where necessary, after patients have opted for surgery. This model of practice could be extended to other medical decisions that are influenced by patients’ emotions

The Effects of Experimentally Induced Rumination, Positive Reappraisal, Acceptance, and Distancing When Thinking About a Stressful Event on Affect States in Adolescents

The current study compares the effects of experimentally induced rumination, positive reappraisal, distancing, and acceptance on affect states in adolescents aged 13–18. Participants (N = 160) were instructed to think about a recent stressful event. Next, they received specific instructions on how to think about that event in each condition. Manipulation checks revealed that the manipulations were successful, except for acceptance. The two most reported events were “a fight” and “death of loved one”. Results showed that positive reappraisal (i.e., thinking about the benefits and personal growth) caused a significantly larger increase in positive affect and decrease in negative affect compared to rumination, distancing, and acceptance. Current findings implicate that positive reappraisal seems an adequate coping strategy in the short-term, and therefore could be applied in interventions for youth experiencing difficulties managing negative affect. Future research should focus on long-term effects of these cognitive strategies and on more intensive training of acceptance

The "instrumentality" heuristic: Why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit

The literature overwhelmingly demonstrates that feelings of ease are good and that objects that are easy to process are much liked. We propose, and demonstrate across three experiments, that this is not the case when people are pursuing a goal. This is because people pursuing a goal (e.g., "become kinder") usually invest efforts in whichever means (e.g., donate to a particular charity) they perceive as most instrumental for attaining their goal. Consequently, in their minds there is a correspondence between instrumentality of a means and feelings of effort. This correspondence becomes reversed in people's minds during goal pursuit, and they also come to view an object that is associated with feelings of effort rather than ease as more instrumental for goal attainment and consequently more desirable. When an object is not a means to fulfill an accessible goal, or when goals relating to the means are not accessible, subjective feelings of ease improve evaluation, as found in previous research on ease of processing. © 2009 Association for Psychological Science.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Embodiment in Judgment and Choice

This article discusses the role of embodiment in judgment and choice to (a) attain clarity on conceptual and methodological issues by presenting a literature review of prior empirical research on embodiment, (b) gain an integrative view on the topic of embodiment in judgment and choice by proposing somatic marker theory as a unifying conceptual framework for bridging cognition and affect in terms of embodiment, and (c) discuss and clarify ideas and directions for further research on the topic