Two major kinds of influences have been identified. Mood informs the
content of memories, thoughts, and judgments. Processing effects occur
because mood also influences how people deal with social information.
However, it is also clear that mood influences on judgments and behavior are
highly context specific. The thinking strategies people can use in social
situations differ in terms of two basic features:
(1) the degree of effort invested, and
(2) the degree of openness and constructiveness of the
thinking strategy.
The combination of these two features, quantity (effort) and quality
(openness) of thinking, defines four distinct processing styles:
* direct access processing (low effort/closed),
* motivated processing (high effort/closed),
* heuristic processing (low effort/open, constructive), and
* substantive processing (high effort/open, constructive).
Many social responses are based on the low effort direct access
strategy, or the simple and direct retrieval of a pre-existing response.
This is most likely when the task is highly familiar and there is no reason
to engage in more elaborate thinking. For example, if asked in a street
survey to rate a well-known political leader, reproducing a previously
computed and stored evaluation will be sufficient. People possess a rich
store of preformed attitudes and judgments. Retrieving them requires no
constructive thinking and mood infusion should not occur.
The second motivated processing strategy involves highly selective
and targeted thinking that is dominated by a particular motivational
objective. This strategy also precludes open information search and should
be impervious to mood infusion. For example, if in a job interview you are
asked about your attitude toward the company you want to join, the response
will be dominated by the motivation to produce an acceptable response. Open,
constructive processing is inhibited, and mood infusion is unlikely.
Depending on the particular goal, motivated processing may also produce
mood-incongruent responses and a reversal of mood infusion.
The third strategy, heuristic processing, is most likely when the
task is simple, familiar, and has little personal relevance, and there is no
reason for more detailed processing. This kind of superficial, quick
processing is likely when we need to respond to an unexpected question, say,
in a telephone survey or a street survey. Heuristic processing can sometimes
lead to mood infusion if people adopt the simple "How do I feel about it"
strategy.
Finally, substantive processing is used when people need to fully
and constructively deal with a social situation. This is an inherently open
and constructive thinking style that characterizes most of our most
personally relevant and important decisions. This kind of thinking should be
used whenever the task is demanding, atypical, complex or involving, and
there are no ready-made direct access responses or motivational goals
available to guide the response.
It seems that unfamiliar, complex, and atypical tasks recruit more
substantive thinking. Mood itself also can influence processing choices; as
we have seen, positive mood promotes a more internally driven, top-down
thinking style, and negative mood triggers more externally focused,
bottom-up thinking. This theory or model helps to specify the circumstances
leading to the absence of mood infusion when direct access or
motivated processing is used and the presence of mood infusion during
heuristic and substantive processing.
Two of the thinking styles identified by this model may also be involved
in how we manage our everyday moods. Substantive processing typically
facilitates mood infusion and the maintenance and accentuation of an
existing mood state. In contrast, motivated processing may produce
mood-incongruent responses and the attenuation of the mood-state. Mood
management can thus be achieved as people spontaneously switch their
information processing strategies between substantive and motivated
processing so as to calibrate their prevailing moods. In other words, these
two thinking styles may jointly constitute a dynamic, self-correcting mood
management system.
When responses by happy and sad people are monitored over time, initial
mood congruence spontaneously gives way to mood incongruent responses. This
switch from "first congruent, then incongruent" responses suggests the
existence of a spontaneous mood regulation system, and emotional
intelligence is likely to involve a ready ability to switch from substantive
to motivated thinking.
