Supplemental Material for Like Schrödinger’s Cat, the Impact Bias Is Both Dead and Alive: Reply to Wilson and Gilbert (2013)

2013 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact

Affective Forecasts for the Experience Itself: An Investigation of the Impact Bias during an Affective Experience

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Aitken ◽  
Seth A. Kaplan ◽  
Olivia Pagan ◽  
Carol M. Wong ◽  
Eric Sikorski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Affective Experience ◽  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Affective Forecasts

scholarly journals Like Schrödinger’s cat, the impact bias is both dead and alive: Reply to Wilson and Gilbert (2013).

2013 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda J. Levine ◽  
Heather C. Lench ◽  
Robin L. Kaplan ◽  
Martin A. Safer
Keyword(s):  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Radar Rainfall Estimation in Morocco: Quality Control and Gauge Adjustment

Hydrology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Sahlaoui ◽  
Soumia Mordane
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Radar Reflectivity ◽  
Radar Rainfall ◽  
Rain Gauges ◽  
Impact Bias ◽  
African Rainfall ◽  
Precipitation Structure ◽  
Radar Rainfall Estimate ◽  
The Impact

This study focused on investigating the impact of gauge adjustment on the rainfall estimate from a Moroccan C-band weather radar located in Khouribga City. The radar reflectivity underwent a quality check before deployment to retrieve the rainfall amount. The process consisted of clutter identification and the correction of signal attenuation. Thereafter, the radar reflectivity was converted into rainfall depth over a period of 24 h. An assessment of the accuracy of the radar rainfall estimate over the study area showed an overall underestimation when compared to the rain gauges (bias = −6.4 mm and root mean square error [RMSE] = 8.9 mm). The adjustment model was applied, and a validation of the adjusted rainfall versus the rain gauges showed a positive impact (bias = −0.96 mm and RMSE = 6.7 mm). The case study conducted on December 16, 2016 revealed substantial improvements in the precipitation structure and intensity with reference to African Rainfall Climatology version 2 (ARC2) precipitations.

Motivated Underpinnings of the Impact Bias in Affective Forecasts

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carey Morewedge ◽  
Eva Buechel ◽  
Joachim Vosgerau
Keyword(s):  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Affective Forecasts

The impact bias in self and others: Affective and empathic forecasting in individuals with social anxiety

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 ◽  
pp. 37-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Arditte Hall ◽  
Jutta Joormann ◽  
Matthias Siemer ◽  
Kiara R. Timpano
Keyword(s):  
Social Anxiety ◽  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact

Affective Forecasting

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 131-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy D. Wilson ◽  
Daniel T. Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
Affective Forecasting ◽  
Negative Events ◽  
Impact Bias ◽  
External Agents ◽  
Future Events ◽  
Emotional Recovery ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Affective Forecasts

People base many decisions on affective forecasts, predictions about their emotional reactions to future events. They often display an impact bias, overestimating the intensity and duration of their emotional reactions to such events. One cause of the impact bias is focalism, the tendency to underestimate the extent to which other events will influence our thoughts and feelings. Another is people's failure to anticipate how quickly they will make sense of things that happen to them in a way that speeds emotional recovery. This is especially true when predicting reactions to negative events: People fail to anticipate how quickly they will cope psychologically with such events in ways that speed their recovery from them. Several implications are discussed, such as the tendency for people to attribute their unexpected resilience to external agents.

Motivated underpinnings of the impact bias in affective forecasting

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carey K. Morewedge ◽  
Eva C. Buechel ◽  
Joachim Vosgerau
Keyword(s):  
Affective Forecasting ◽  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Erratum to: How buyers forecast: Buyer–seller relationship as a boundary condition of the impact bias

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-423
Author(s):  
Ashwani Monga ◽  
Haipeng (Allan) Chen ◽  
Michael Tsiros ◽  
Mona Sinha
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Condition ◽  
Impact Bias ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Seller Relationship
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document