“The most important decision you can make is to be in a good mood” Voltaire (b.1694-d.1778)
Voltaire’s aphorism sounds like good sense, but perhaps being in a good mood can lead us to make bad decisions, and being in a bad mood can help us make good ones.
This paper will explore the various ways in which an individual’s mood and emotion (“affect”) might impact decision-making. Firstly the paper will define what is meant by affect, and what decisions it will consider. Secondly, it will explore what roles affect could play in decision-making. Thirdly, it will suggest that the valence of affect could be the basis on which decisions are made and/or it could determine the way in which decisions are made. Fourthly, the paper will go on to explore whether particular types of affect might have differing roles in decisions.
Understanding why and how we make choices and judgments is in some senses the original philosophical question: Are we the playthings of the gods? Are we driven by the balance of our “humours” (earth, air, fire, water)? Are we possessed by spirits? Modern (i.e. post-Enlightenment) thought has generally assumed a rational view of man; the entire construct of economics has (until very recently) been founded on that idea. But if affect has a significant and predictable role in decision-making then politics, marketing, economics and financial analysis will all need dimensions of affect to be integrated into their disciplines, not just advertising and marketing.
Affect is a valenced feeling state - a mood or emotion that feels good or bad, positive or negative. Moods (as opposed to emotions) are long lasting, broad and vague. They tend not to have a specific trigger, nor do they involve coherent thought or analysis,
Affect is also characterised by “activation”,
The decisions, judgments, beliefs and choices we will consider are those made by individuals (rather than groups, teams or committees). Decisions broadly fall into two types; “system 1” and “system 2” decisions,
There are four roles affect could play:
1.None; it could be that we are wholly rational.
2.Consequential; we may make decisions with the aim of achieving a differently affected state in the future.
3.Informational; affect may be the basis, or part of the basis, on which we make a decision, just as data or experience can be.
4.Processing. It may be that affect changes or indeed becomes the way in which we make a decision.
In the 1950s a challenge to rationality emerged as academics observed firstly the mistakes people made in appraising the likelihood of uncertain events, and secondly the way in which heuristics seemed to trump analysis in the face of complicated decisions. However, these challenges were simply viewed as weaknesses in cognition (sometimes termed “bounded rationality”,
“Nobody loves me, everybody hates me. I’m going outside to eat worms.” (Traditional)
Going out into the garden to eat worms may not be the best way, but this is an example of doing something to ameliorate negative affect. How good we are at achieving a desired affected state as an outcome is questionable, but consequential affect drives decisions; indeed, this idea is the bedrock on which behavioural economics is founded. Economists are starting to factor in expected emotion alongside the classic notion of “utility” in analyzing how decisions are made,
Our “immediate” affected state may be the basis on which we make a decision, (affect-as-information), or may influence the way in which we make a judgment (affect–as-process). We will first explore affect-as-information theory.
“Pleasure and revenge / have ears more deaf than adders to the voice / of any true decision”
(William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Act II Scene ii)
Thus Hector counsels his brothers on their decision-making, warning them against “the hot passion of distempered blood”, (ibid.). So how might affect be the basis on which decisions are made? We will consider three ways:
- The somatic marker hypothesis
- Affect heuristics
- Fluency and ease of retrieval
The well-known Iowa gambling task experiment
The somatic market hypothesis has an intuitive appeal; a “gut feel”, “hunch” or instinct is a way we often make a decision. But recent criticisms of the hypothesis casts doubt on the extent to which conclusions about affect can be drawn,
In a similar vein it has been argued we build up a bank of images, sounds, smells, words, tastes, concepts and impressions. These memories have an affective tag. The feel of one’s old soft toy can immediately convey a sense of comfort and security, or the smell of leeks boiling can transport one to the loneliness of a boarding school. But these tags don’t only connect memories to affect, they also influence current decisions. Is my choice of car rational, based on appraisal of fuel economy, safety ratings, performance data and price? Or is it based on the fact I like it? And maybe I like it because the image of the car is tagged with positive affect – maybe because of priming, experience or even “mere exposure”. A number of researchers have tested the impact of affect on preference by experiments where unconscious priming techniques are used, and then participants’ choices are observed. Affect plays a large part in shaping our choices, whether knowingly or not,
There are some interesting observations on how affect’s role changes significance in different contexts. If decision-makers appraise a choice in isolation – e.g. “how much would you pay for seven-ounces of ice cream?” - the affective response is muted. But if the seven-ounces are placed in a cup with ten-ounce capacity it looks disappointing; in a cup with five-ounce capacity it looks generous.
A different slant on affect is to see it as more consciously part of a decision. When confronted with a choice we ask ourselves: “How do I feel?” If the affect is integral to the choice being made, then we pay full attention to its valence and arousal. If, by contrast, affect is incidental (e.g. caused by the weather), we are likely to try to ignore it. This will be more easily accomplished if there are sufficient data available about the decision. Curiously, there is some evidence that we consciously try to ignore incidental affect to the extent that we may actually over-correct. It is worth adding that if affect is an emotion (rather than a mood) it tends to be focused on a particular event and thus is easier to categorise as incidental or integral to the decision in hand.
Incidental affect can play out differently depending on the nature of the choice. Participants in an experiment were asked to list names of birds, having been primed with either negative or positive affect. Part way through the exercise they were asked if they had finished the task. Those primed with positive affect replied they were, and stopped. Those primed negatively said no, and continued the work. By contrast, if the participants were asked if they were enjoying the task, the group with positive affect said they were, and carried on listing birds. Those with negative affect said they were not, and stopped,
Fluency and ease of retrieval.
People enjoy tasks that they find they can complete fluently or easily. And that sense of enjoyment generates a positively affected state. By contrast, a task we find difficult or disfluent to execute engenders negative affect. The affect created then influences the decision; fluent choices seem to present themselves as truer, more authoritative and less risky,
Affect as process
Red and green lights.
Affect can alter the way in which judgments are made, irrespective of the data. Negative affect, it has been hypothesized, is akin to a “proceed with caution” warning. It’s a signal that all is not well in the world, so our cognitive processes change. On the other hand, positive affect is a cheerful sign to crack-on, full speed ahead – the environment is benign, and all is well in the world. Again cognitive processes will adapt to this state.
We will explore these ideas further, and then go on to look at an alternative construct about how affect alters the way in which we make decisions.
“Proceed with caution”. If negatively affected our cognitive processes, it is argued, operate with vigilance and suspicion. They become more analytical and require increased effort, (ibid.), employing a system 2 approach. There are benefits; memory seems to improve, and we more readily discard misleading information. Our judgment improves, as we seem to ignore the primacy and halo effects and we become less susceptible to fundamental attribution error. We are less gullible, and less likely to rely on stereotyping. We seem to persevere more, and are more cautious and considered in our approaches to others
“Full speed ahead”. If positively affected our cognitive processes change to a benign and relaxed approach. We become more reliant on intuition, heuristics and stereotypes,
- Altruism and helpfulness are increased;
- Ingenuity is enhanced, (as shown by participants in the remote associates test);
- Resilience to stress is strengthened;
- Low-risk variety is sought;
- Hostile and destructive negotiation is eschewed; and
- Decision-making becomes more efficient, more thorough and more caring (as shown in the diagnostic steps taken by positively- compared to negatively-affected doctors).
So there is a compelling amount of experimentation and research into the stop/go role of affect in decision-making.
But there is a different view:
Style reinforcement / denial.
An alternative view suggests that the valence of affect does not change cognitive process to global, broad thinking if positive, and to narrow, local thinking if negative. Rather, positive affect confirms the validity of whatever cognitive style we are currently using, and negative affect stimulates us to change style. So if we are thinking in a narrow, analytical way with positive affect, we will continue to do so. It is as if our benign view of the world says we should carry on as we are. If, on the other hand, we are thinking in a narrow analytical way and become negatively affected we will change about and start to think broadly,
Affect dimensions and decision-making.
So far we have explored the role of affect in decision-making as if all types of positive or negative affect had the same result.
But might it be that different types of, say, positive affect (joy and pride, for instance) play differing roles in decision-making? Is the information or process effect of anger, for instance, different to that engendered by disgust, both negatively valenced but very different?
To analyse the way in which different emotions or moods may impact judgment and choice it is helpful to have a systematic classification of affect. One approach is to categorise affect by its “appraisal tendency”: The dimensions of affect appraisal centered on an event are as follows,
- Certainty – to what extent is the future predictable and understandable
- Pleasantness – how enjoyable is the event?
- Attentional activity –how salient is the event?
- Responsibility – does it rest with the individual, is someone else responsible?
- Anticipated effort – how much effort will be needed to respond?
- Situational control – is the event a result of human agency, or an act of god?
In states of differing appraisal, decisions may change. If we see someone queue-barging, the event is very certain and predictable, it is not in the least enjoyable, the event is salient, it is not the individual’s responsibility, a response will require significant effort (an argument, or self-control in order not to have an argument), and lastly it was clearly human agency at play. These dimensions will likely be accompanied by anger. Fear, by contrast, is also negatively valenced. If we fear a volcano whilst erupting in front of us there will be significant uncertainty, high salience, huge effort to escape, but no personal responsibility or human control. Decisions may well be made very differently than under anger. Indeed, in an experiment to review risk assessment under conditions of fear and anger (both examples of negatively-valenced affect) judgements did turn out to be different; the angry were more optimistic than the fearful,
Summary, conclusion and further steps
Emotion plays a big and not yet fully understood part in our decision. Plato in The Republic splits the soul into three parts: reason, emotion (sometimes translated as spirit or energy), and appetite.
We have looked at affect-as-consequence, affect-as-information and affect-as-process. The first of those is becoming influential in behavioural economics. The latter two are interesting in their conclusions on the valence of affect and its impact on decision-making; affect can serve as a heuristic, and/or affect can impact the way in which we engage our cognitive processes. Lastly, we looked beyond simply the valence of affect and into the roles different types of affect may have on decision-making. It is this area that would seem to offer a rich seam of research for the future. Merely looking at the valence of affect is limited in what it can offer, but looking into the cognitive, social, and evolutionary roles of different types of affect may well offer more insight into their helpful or unhelpful roles in decision-making. Hamlet’s desire for revenge, Othello’s jealousy, Macbeth’s ambition, Lear’s vanity – these tragic flaws played out very differently for their possessors.
Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition , 50 (1-3), 7-15.
Barret, L. J., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and Bipolarity in the Structure of Current Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 (4), 964-984.
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Tranel, D. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain , 123, 2189-2002.
Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: A critical evaluation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews , 30, 239-271.
Forgas, J. (2013). Don’t worry, be sad! On the cognitive, motivational, and interpersonal benefits of negative mood. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 22, 225-232.
Gasper, K., & Clore, G. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science (13), 13-39.
Hsee, C. (1998). Less is better; When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making , 11, 107-121.
Huntsinger, J. (2012). Does Positive Affect Broaden and Negative Affect Narrow Attentional Scope? A New Answer to an Old Question. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 141 (4), 596-600.
Isen, A. M. (2001). An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex Situations: Theoretical Issues With Practical Implications. Journal of Consumer Psychology , 11 (2), 75-85.
Kahnemann, D. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Random House.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cogntion and Emotion , 14 (4), 473-493.
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and Decision Making. Annual Psychological Review , 66 (33), 1-25.
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The Role of Affect in Decision Making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith, Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 619-642). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, L., Abend, T., Sedikes, C., & Green, J. (1997). How would it feel if...? Mood input to a role fulfilment evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (73), 242-253.
Popper, K. R. (1980). The Open Society and its Enemies: Plato. London: Routlege & Kegan Paul.
Rick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (2008). The Role of Emotion in Economic Behaviour. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotions (3rd Edition ed.). New York.
Schwarz, N. (2010). Feelings-as-information theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Sage.
Sen, A., Daubman, K., & Nowicki, G. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (52), 1,122-1,131.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research (177), 1,333-1,352.
Smith, C., & Ellsworth, P. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Cognition (48), 813-838.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate. Behavioural and Brain Sciences , 23, 645-665.