The impact bias is alive and well

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Cognitive Science

Background:

• Affective forecasting research indicates people often overestimate the emotional impact of future events.
• Levine et al. (2012) proposed that overestimation is limited to the duration, not intensity, of emotional responses.

Purpose of the Study:

• To re-evaluate the claim that affective forecasting does not involve overestimation of emotional intensity.
• To identify and correct methodological flaws in the meta-analysis by Levine et al. (2012).

Main Methods:

• Critically reviewed the meta-analysis by Levine et al. (2012), including studies they omitted and re-examining their classification and coding.
• Analyzed four additional studies reported by Levine et al. for alternative explanations.

Main Results:

• Levine et al. (2012) omitted contradictory studies, employed a flawed classification scheme, combined dissimilar conditions, and miscoded data.
• Correcting these errors refutes the claim that emotional intensity is not overestimated.
• The four additional studies offer alternative explanations that do not support Levine et al.'s conclusions.

Conclusions:

• The impact bias, or overestimation of emotional intensity in affective forecasting, is a well-supported phenomenon.
• Methodological rigor is crucial for accurate conclusions in meta-analyses of affective forecasting.