Impact Bias or Underestimation? Outcome Specifications Predict the Direction of Affective Forecasting Errors

Affective forecasts are used to anticipate the hedonic impact of future events and decide which events to pursue or avoid. We propose that because affective forecasters are more sensitive to outcome specifications of events than experiencers, the outcome specification values of an event, such as its duration, magnitude, probability, and psychological distance, can be used to predict the direction of affective forecasting errors: whether affective forecasters will overestimate or underestimate its hedonic impact. When specifications are positively correlated with the hedonic impact of an event, forecasters will overestimate the extent to which high specification values will intensify and low specification values will discount its impact. When outcome specifications are negatively correlated with its hedonic impact, forecasters will overestimate the extent to which low specification values will intensify and high specification values will discount its impact. These affective forecasting errors compound additively when multiple specifications are aligned in their impact: In Experiment 1, affective forecasters underestimated the hedonic impact of winning a smaller prize that they expected to win, and they overestimated the hedonic impact of winning a larger prize that they did not expect to win. In Experiment 2, affective forecasters underestimated the hedonic impact of a short unpleasant video about a temporally distant event, and they overestimated the hedonic impact of a long unpleasant video about a temporally near event. Experiments 3A and 3B showed that differences in the affect-richness of forecasted and experienced events underlie these differences in sensitivity to outcome specifications, therefore accounting for both the impact bias and its reversal. (PsycINFO Database Record