PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Peters, Slovic / THE SPRINGS OF ACTION The Springs of Action: Affective and Analytical Information Processing in Choice Ellen Peters Paul Slovic Decision Research Affective processes were predicted to play a critical role in choices among complex stimuli. As hypothesized, self-report measures of individual differences in affective information processing were associated with choices in a task designed by Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, and Anderson to mimic the gains, losses, and uncer- tainties of real life decisions. The results were stronger when the processing of losses was considered separately from the processing of gains. Greater negative affectivity was associated with more avoidance of high-loss options; greater positive affectivity was associated with more choices from high-gain options. Both mea- sures of affectivity added unique explanatory power to the predic- tion of choices among the decks over and above conscious knowl- edge about the decks. Affect appears to play an important role in guiding decisions and judgments. wo growing bodies of research have demonstrated the influence of affect (feelings or emotions about a specific object) and individual differences in affective informa- tion processing on judgments, decisions, and behaviors (e.g., Fowles & Missel, 1994; Kahneman, Frederickson, Schreiber, & Redelmeier, 1993; Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997; Peters & Slovic, 1996; Zinbarg & Mohlman, 1998). We attempt to improve on this past research in three ways. First, most psychological research on deci- sion making has used stimuli that already have affective meaning to participants (e.g., extremely cold water feels painful) (Kahneman et al., 1993). This approach may yield a great deal of information about factors that influ- ence the relation between affect and choice once affect has developed while shedding little or no light on factors involved in the initial acquisition of affect and its relation to choice processes. In the present study, participants acquire affect as they make a series of choices among ini- tially unfamiliar objects. Second, previous decision-mak- ing studies have seldom made any allowance for individ- ual variation; in the present study, an examination of in- dividual differences helps us to understand and explain choice processes with a model of the mind that includes affect as central to the development of choice behavior (e.g., Damasio, 1994). Third, other research has demonstrated correlations between affective reactivity and simple choices among either gains or losses (e.g., Zinbarg & Mohlman, 1998). These approaches to the study of affect and choice pro- vide important information about factors that influence the relation between affect and simple choices. However, life itself is not so simple. In real life, we rarely encounter situations or objects that are completely rewarding or altogether punishing. Bran cereal may not taste very good but it is good for us. The present study focuses on the development of affect toward objects where the objects themselves are complex mixtures of gains and losses. One approach that has great promise for addressing these limitations in a laboratory setting is to develop par- 1465 Authors’ Note: This research was supported in part by a National Insti- tute of Mental Health Emotion Research Training grant (No. MH18935) and a National Science Foundation grant (SES-9975347) to the first author and by National Science Foundation grants (SBR-9422754 and SBR-9876587) to the second author. The article is based on the dissertation of the first author. We wish to thank Robert Mauro, Rick Zinbarg, and John Orbell for their invaluable input as members of the dissertation committee. In addition, Bertram Malle, Sarah Lichtenstein, and the social/personality and emotion research groups at the University of Oregon provided particularly valuable ad- vice at various stages of this project. Completion of the dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance of Janet Douglas and Leisha Mullican. We also would like to thank Antoine Bechara for providing us with the task instructions and design of their original card-selection task as well as Tom Gilovich and two anonymous review- ers for their very helpful comments and suggestions on this article. Address correspondence concerning this article to Ellen Peters, Deci- sion Research, 1201 Oak Street, Eugene, OR 97401; e-mail: empeters@ oregon.uoregon.edu. PSPB, Vol. 26 No. 12, December 2000 1465-1475 © 2000 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.