AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Refund app selfcontrol1/8/2024 ![]() Hence, the feeling of what is right and what is wrong assumes a meaning relative to the goal itself, on the attitude toward the goal. This feeling-right experience consequently reduces the self-control mechanism, then transfers to subsequent evaluations. De facto, according to the regulatory fit theory, when people engage in decisions or choices with strategies that sustain their orientation, they “feel right” about what they are doing. ![]() This is due to the hypothesis individuals decide and confirm their decision based on their orientation more than on an absolute idea of what is fair to do, re-directing them through regulatory fit (Avnet and Higgins, 2006). In either way, chronic promotion- or prevention-focused individuals' use of feelings to make a choice increased the monetary value of the chosen product (Avnet and Higgins, 2006). Contrarily, prevention-focused individuals are concerned with avoiding the negative emotion and the relative outcome, hence taking their decisions in line with such a rationale, obeying their ought self. In particular, promotion-focused individuals build their regulatory focus over the hope to match with the positive emotion toward their ideal self. Higgins ( 1997) was the first to describe the “regulatory focus,” attributable to self-control, based on a dual set of prevalent emotions either sought or avoided. Indeed, emotions seem to prevail over more rational choices in financial and insurance decision-making when self-control is poorly executed due to either positive or negative affective states. In a more practical description, tests can be made to assess how the combination between context, cognition, and emotions adds value to financial decision-making in the hypothesis, this can be achieved when agents adaptively rely on heuristics in uncertain conditions (Forbes et al., 2015). ![]() Sometimes affective states hinder normatively correct thinking, while in other cases, they promote it (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011). In a complex system with several correlating factors in dynamic conditions, insurance decision-making is still characterized by the impossibility of defining, ex ante, with confidence by the prospect acquirer, the probability of events in the future.Īgainst the desired mechanism of self-control triggered by a cognitive “controller” over an affective “controlee” on decision-making, Blanchette and Richards ( 2010) reviewed a series of articles to identify the association between affective states and cognitive mechanisms, hence on the subjectivity of the direction of self-control. It is expressed in terms of economic availability, risk disposition, trust in a competitive system of insurance (Abraham, 1985), among many other psychological factors, including the cognitive–affective interplay, that go far beyond the mere utility maximization (Kusev et al., 2017). Uncertainty from the acquirer's view, the protagonist of the present article, is given by the subjectivity of each case (Ewald, 1991). The insurance firm is responsible for the risk underwriting, calculating a premium to be paid by the customer for the insurance purchase based on a set of factors deemed relevant at a large scale of customers, ensuring profitability. In the insurance sector, decision-making processes of consumers are configured as choices in conditions of risk and uncertainty.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |