The Role of Emotion in Decision Making - Essay Example

?The Role of Emotion in Decision Making: The nature of role played by emotions in decision making has been largely ignored by decision researchers over the past years as this process is generally thought of as cognitive rather than emotional. The role of emotions in context of making decisions is still debatable which presently continues to attract a broad range of researchers around the globe. Critics arguing against the significance of emotions in decision making claim that this is actually a matter of thoughtfully evaluating different kinds of strategies or action which could promise most desirable consequences and if this matter is associated with emotions instead of mind, conditions may often take a negative toll becoming chaotic in the long run. In contrast, advocates of the association between emotions and decision making argue that though emotional involvement may negatively interfere with the expected consequences, it is a reality that emotions hugely influence the quality of decision making. Decisions made emotionally without thinking things through definitely increases the probability rate of failure but to say that emotions play no kind of substantial role in decision making is empty mockery. In comparison to orthodox research which only focuses on cognitive perspective, contemporary research lays a huge emphasis on emotional role. Thought throughout history the dominant view has been that emotions exert a negative influence on human behavior, recent human intellectual research identifies that emotions can also serve myriad positive functions. This essay basically attempts to review the literature research to find out what it has to say on the subject of advanced emotional-related developments made in decision making by decision researchers and to what extent emotions play a beneficial role in human behavior especially under critical conditions. It is argued by Loewenstein & Lerner (2003, p. 619) that emotions attracted little attention from psychologists and researchers in the past as cognitive perspective was dominant and most popular. But, modern decision research has broken this traditional pattern and opened its doors to emotions. It is proposed that the value of positive emotions should be recognized as they play a major role in producing behavior which “may be seen as resulting not only from cognitive effects but also from apparent motivational changes” (Lewis, Haviland-Jones, & Barrett, 2010, p. 561). Most emotion researchers stand in contrast to cognitive researchers in respect that they “argue for the primacy of emotions over cognition” (Vohs, Baumeister, & Loewenstein, 2007, p. 4). It is assumed that the breakthrough of decision research is largely associated with the traditional or behavior decision theory which at the time it was introduced rejected the role played by human emotions in decision making (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003, p. 619). This theory focused on scrutinizing different cognitive errors made by people when evaluating which actions should be taken to achieve desired results but did not lay any emphasis on the role of emotions. Not only do emotions serve useful functions but also they can quite effectively become “a potential source of biased judgment and reckless action” (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003, p. 620). The expected utility model is one of the popular models of decision making which seeks to explain how emotions gain entry into decision making. It suggests that human beings have a tendency to assess the emotional outcomes of their actions before planning to make a decision so that they could select actions which would be associated more with positive emotions and less with negative ones in order to improve their decision making skills. While this model throws light on the role of expected emotions in decision making, research also identifies the significance of immediate emotions which play a huge role in altering the decision making process for better or worse. Immediate emotions can both directly and indirectly affect the decisions of a person and they basically illustrate the combined effect of all emotions that “originate from contemplating the consequences of the decision itself” (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003, p. 620). It is worth mentioning that in recent years, interest in the role played by emotions has significantly risen within the field of cognitive psychology and decision performance in addition to other fields like economics and finance (Lewis, Haviland-Jones, & Barrett, 2010, p. 561). Zerbe, Hartel, & Ashkanasy (2008, pp. 4-5) claim that different negative emotions like anger, fear, and anxiety and positive emotions like happiness profoundly affect cognitive functioning of people which forms the bedrock of strategic decision making. It is often debated if the role played by emotions aids or damages decision process. Research illustrates that advocates of emotional perspective consider all moral judgments to be a product of emotion while advocates of cognitive perspective deem them a matter of pure logic and rationality. There is also not a lack of those researchers whose studies primarily illustrate the detrimental effects of emotions in decision making and those who selectively focus “on the vitally beneficial functions that emotions serve” (Vohs, Baumeister, & Loewenstein, 2007, p. 4). Like previous psychological research has predominantly focused on cognitive role in decision making, organizational studies in the past have also mainly debated on negative effects of emotions while illuminating how decision making is and always should be rational. In contrast, contemporary organizational research agrees on the importance of emotional role when contemplating a variety of options (Bazerman et al. cited in Ashkanasy & Cooper, 2008, p. 55). However, it should not be forgotten that under some conditions, purely rational decision making is required while under other conditions, solely relying on cognitive perspective while rejecting to incorporate emotional role can also compromise the quality of decision making. This is because positive emotions are widely suggested to be especially highly helpful in responsibly guiding human behavior (Ashkanasy & Cooper, 2008, p. 56). It is a reality that the relationship between emotions and decision making is not entirely understood as yet as for quite a long time, focus remained on other aspects excluding emotional aspect. This is why more research should be carried out to enable a common man develop deep understanding of “how, when, and why positive affect increases or decreases decision performance” (Ashkanasy & Cooper, 2008, p. 56). Somatic-marker hypothesis (SMH) is another notable neurobiological theory which significantly contributes to explaining the meaning of role played by emotions in decision making. SMH stresses that “emotions are biologically indispensable to decisions” (Mogler, 2008, p. 2). According to SMH, there is no denying the influence exerted by emotions on all decisions made by humans. It is also suggested that the decision making process essentially involves a relationship between “neural systems that elicit emotional/bodily states and neural systems that map these emotional/bodily states” (Naqvi, Shiv, & Bechara, 2006, p. 260). The emergence of this theory made it easier to comprehend the mechanism through which emotions direct human behavior in different ways especially in context of decision making. It is proposed that when a person is faced with quite difficult or puzzling situations, the somatic markers within the human brain are processed to develop a net somatic state which then heavily influences or biases the decision of what actions should be taken or what behavior should be displayed. This influence on a person’s decision making process can occur both unconsciously as mentioned already or consciously when higher cognitive processes are also involved. It is claimed that somatic markers play an important role in directing a person’s attention towards those options which are especially advantageous or promising which consequently simplifies the decision process (Naqvi, Shiv, & Bechara, 2006, p. 263). This explains that depending on cognitive process alone can often make human brain overloaded when making a decision and when emotional process is also incorporated either consciously or unconsciously, decision processes are simplified often for better. Research suggests that most theories consider human decisions to derive from “an assessment of the future outcomes of various options and alternatives through some type of cost-benefit analyses” (Bechara, 2004, p. 30) while the role of emotions on decision process has remained largely ignored. According to an observational study performed on neurological patients who are unable to normally process emotional information, it is suggested that people not only make judgments by thoughtfully evaluating the options available to them but also principally at emotional level sometimes. Such decisions made primarily at emotional level are fraught with risks however. Many people are not able to reach any decision without somatic signals which guide human behavior. In these neurobiological patients included in the observation, it was noticed that lesions of the ventromedial sector of the prefrontal cortex negatively interfered with the processing of somatic markers. These somatic markers which guide a person on how to behave or reach a decision are processed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC). These lesions destroyed somatic signals while sparing most cognitive functions and as many decisions have to be essentially made by coupling cognitive functions with emotional ones, “such damage leads to impairments in the decision-making process, which seriously compromise the quality of decisions in daily life” (Bechara, 2004, p. 30). This research clearly provides evidence for SMH discussed already which shows that the role of emotions in decision process cannot be denied especially in the light on contemporary research. The ability of a person to select most appropriate choice to achieve the desired results depends not only on cognitive processes but also heavily on neural substrates that are known to monitor emotions and feelings. It is a good move that modern decision making approaches have begun to recognize the power of high intensity emotions and their effects on actions or behavior (Ashkanasy, Zerbe, & Hartel, 2002, p. 162). Research in sport and exercise settings also acknowledges the role of emotions where it is claimed that positive emotions lead to positive consequences while negative emotions like anger and frustration are known for creating chaotic conditions in the fields. The nature of emotional processes plays an important role in different types of sport performance. It is suggested that the contribution of emotions to decision making of “both athletes and coaches appears to be a fruitful area to investigate” (Khanin, 2000, p. 34). Following a series of experiments performed by Isen and colleagues with the help of which they examined the kind of influence produced by positive emotions or happy moods on risky betting behavior, it was concluded that people in happy mood are more likely to avoid risk by evaluating the consequences of losing than those who are haunted by negative emotions. This suggests that positive emotions are associated with risk aversion while negative ones are related to risk-taking (Pomery, 2008, pp. 6-7). It means that emotions can affect decision performance of an individual both in positive and negative ways. Daily many decisions have to be taken by a person which if made frantically or on a sudden emotional impulse can lead to highly undesirable consequences sometimes ruining opportunities forever. That is why it is argued by critics of emotional perspective that decision making should be essentially thought of as a cognitive process which has little to do with emotionally charged behavior. Also, many times people readily associate phony or bogus assumptions with a certain individual due to underlying bigoted emotions, but things turn out to be way different when decisions are made about him/her impartially and as objectively as possible. Therefore, it is a popular argument that many times certain emotional states end up causing “more harm than good to the decision making process” (Forgas, 2012, p. 146). This ambiguity related to emotional role has given rise to extensive research done on the subject of what happens as a result of engagement of emotions with decision making. Koenigs (2006, p. 13) claims that the role of emotions in decision making could often be characterized as biased and little to do with reality. This is because emotions engage with the ability to decide or behave in a manner which is mostly irrational and detrimental. It is indeed a reality that decision making in practical situations depends on a variety of emotional and social factors. However, the way emotions interact with an individual’s decision making ability is not always advantageous. VMPC which is responsible for triggering the activation of somatic patterns facilitates good decision making ability as claimed by SMH which has effectively challenged the traditional cognitive view on decision making. But, it is argued that decisions are best made with a cool head and thoughtful reasoning “without the destructive interference of emotion” (Koenigs, 2006, p. 11). This argument suggests that decisions can be reasonably made even without emotional involvement which stands in contrast to all theories stressing on emotional perspective. Clinical data from VMPC patients identified in different research reports including that discussed already challenges the application of this principle that decisions can be reached without emotional involvement. But, it is suggested that there do exist certain circumstances during which a lack of emotional arousal can actually benefit decision process by boosting logical behavior. Research identifies that VMPC patients in particular are a valuable source of studying “the contexts in which emotions aid decision-making as well as the contexts in which emotions interfere with decision-making” (Koenigs, 2006, p. 12). Research literature argues that “one’s emotional reactions to the risk decision can also influence the decision-making process” (Pomery, 2008, p. 5). Also, many investigations carried out recently challenge the reliability of traditional view on decision making by explicitly identifying with the help of experimentation that “human decisions and actions are much more influenced by intuition and emotional responses then it was previously thought” (Markic, 2009, p. 54). Though classical Greek philosopher Plato generally regarded decision making to be a rational process, but even he never denied the influence of emotions (Markic, 2009, p. 55). It is mentioned in the research study of Gutnik et al. (2006) that throughout history, major focus has remained restricted to studying the cognitive and sociocultural factors in determining human behavior while the emotional role has been rarely addressed by different models of decision making. But, modern research provides evidence that the emotional aspect of decision making is not any less important than the cognitive aspect. In fact, the cognitive factors alone are not sufficient to ensure safe behavior or good decisions in perilous life situations. This is because human emotions form a principal factor in understanding the variety of behaviors. Though both classical decision theory and socioeconomic models of decision making stress on using condoms as this is the best option to avoid any inappropriate results following sexual intercourse, but in reality this does not always happen because decisions made by young men and women are often more influenced by their emotions then by their minds. Gutnik et al. (2006) performed an experiment including 60 young men and women and documented each individual’s sexual behavior. However, they remained unable to appropriately account for all behavior of the participants of their study using the framework of cognitive naturalistic model alone which only focuses on cognitive, cultural, and environmental aspects of decision making. Only when this model was extended to incorporate the emotional role also to analyze the data collected was the ability of the researchers to fully account for young people’s decision making under risk was increased. In the past all philosophers used to study decision making with their focus on cognitive perspective only because they incorrectly believed this process to be principally rational always (Markic, 2009, p. 56). Concluding, this much becomes clear from the above discussion that a large percentage of researchers in the past adhered to cognitive perspective. But, presently general consensus is that human emotions are very complex and enormously powerful in context of decision performance. In many situations they also act as a biasing device to guide a person to select inappropriate or unreasonable choices. These emotions are potentially responsible for shaping the behavior of people as either beneficial or detrimental at the time of reaching a certain decision. In contrast to cognitive viewpoint, emotional perspective suggests that there are many ways by which emotions are incorporated into decision making either deliberately or inadvertently and there is always a chance for any decision to be influenced by the mental state or temperament of the individual to some extent. It is stressed by researchers that emotions can both enable a person to reach a decision about anything objectively or in a biased manner. Both cognitive and emotional processes are abundantly used by a person when assessing the incentive value of different options to make a safe decision. This is particularly true when a person is faced in practical life situations with dilemmas, catch-22s, or paradoxes which are unable to be resolved with the help of cognitive process alone and in such conditions, decisions have to be aided by emotional perspective also. References: Ashkanasy, N.M., Zerbe, W.J., & Hartel, C.E.J. (2002). Managing emotions in the workplace. USA: M.E. Sharpe. Ashkanasy, N.M., & Cooper, C.L. (2008). Research Companion to Emotion In Organizations. Great Britain: Edward Elgar Publishing. Bechara, A. (2004). The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 30-40. Forgas, J.P. (2012). Affect in Social Thinking and Behavior. Asia: Psychology Press. Gutnik, L.A., Hakimzada, A.F., Yoskowitz, N.A., & Patel, V.L. (2006). The role of emotion in decision-making: A cognitive neuroeconomic approach towards understanding sexual risk behavior. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 39(6), 720-736. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2006.03.002. Khanin, I. (2000). Emotions in sport. USA: Human Kinetics 1, 2000. Koenigs, M.R. (2006). A Novel Role for Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex in Emotion and Decision-making: Lesion Studies of Moral Judgment, Economic Choice, and Brand Preference. US: ProQuest. Lewis, M.D., Haviland-Jones, J.M., & Barrett, L.F. (2010). Handbook of emotions. USA: Guilford Press. Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J.S. (2003). THE ROLE OF EFFECT IN DECISION MAKING. In R.J. Davidson, K.R. Scherer, & H.H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 619-642). New York: Oxford University Press. Markic, O. (2009). RATIONALITY AND EMOTIONS IN DECISION MAKING. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 7(2), 54-64. Mogler, C. (2008). Emotional vs. logical/rational decision making - A research project about the role of feelings in the process of decision making. GRIN Verlag. Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The Role of Emotion in Decision Making: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 260-264. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00448.x Pomery, E.A. (2008). The Influence of Positive and Negative Affect on the Processing of Outcome Expectancies Related to Risky Sexual Practices. Iowa: ProQuest. Vohs, K.D., Baumeister, R.F., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Do emotions help or hurt decision making?: A hedgefoxian perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Zerbe, W.J., Hartel, C.E.J., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2008). Emotions, Ethics and Decision-Making. UK: Emerald Group Publishing. Read More