Use this list to keep perspective when emotions arise in team decision-making discussions at your company. These emotions feel good. Individually, they keep us going.
The problem is not how they feel, but how they can affect decision-making behavior in groups. On the other hand, if the right catalyzing person or event strikes a spark the group may rush forward, brushing off real risks, failing to consider other options and ultimately making decisions that fall short of expectations.
These emotions feel bad. But that is the source of their power when it comes to business decision making. Except in extreme circumstances, these emotions motivate us to make a change, and they do a great job helping us come up with more alternatives. Another set of feel good vibes, and another mixed bag when it comes to decision making. On the plus side, these emotions help build teams that stick together, which is a great asset when things go south. However, these emotions can really put a damper on good decision making.
A confident and satisfied team not only considers fewer alternatives, but they also do a worse job analyzing the options in front of them. Buckholtz, J. The neural correlates of third-party punishment. Neuron 60, — The roots of modern justice: cognitive and neural foundations of social norms and their enforcement. From blame to punishment: disrupting prefrontal cortex activity reveals norm enforcement mechanisms.
Neuron 87, — Camerer, C. Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. Carnevale, P. The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Carver, C. Anger is an approach-related affect: evidence and implications. Chapman, H. In bad taste: evidence for the oral origins of moral disgust.
Science , — Civai, C. Equality versus self-interest in the brain: differential roles of anterior insula and medial prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage 62, — Dunn, B. Gut feelings and the reaction to perceived inequity: the interplay between bodily responses, regulation, and perception shapes the rejection of unfair offers on the ultimatum game.
Fabiansson, E. The effects of intrapersonal anger and its regulation in economic bargaining. Falk, A. A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ. Fehr, E. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Feng, C. Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: a coordinate-based meta-analysis.
Brain Mapp. Ferguson, E. Fast to forgive, slow to retaliate: intuitive responses in the ultimatum game depend on the degree of unfairness. Forgas, J. Feeling and doing: affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Praise or blame? Affective influences on attributions for achievement.
Davidson, K. Scherer, and H. Mood effects on selfishness versus fairness: affective influences on social decisions in the ultimatum game. To give or to keep? Affective influences on selfishness and fairness in computer-mediated interactions in the dictator game and the ultimatum game. Frijda, N. The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilam, G. Neural substrates underlying the tendency to accept anger-infused ultimatum offers during dynamic social interactions.
Neuroimage , — Grecucci, A. Reappraising social emotions: the role of inferior frontal gyrus, temporo- parietal junction and insula in interpersonal emotion regulation. Reappraising the ultimatum: an fMRI study of emotion regulation and decision making. Cortex 23, — Gross, J. Emotion regulation: past, present, future. Handbook of Emotion Regulation. Emotional suppression: physiology, self-report, and expressive behavior.
Guclu, B. Mental attributes and temporal brain dynamics during bargaining: EEG source localization and neuroinformatic mapping. Guo, X. Increased neural responses to unfairness in a loss context. Neuroimage 77, — More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature.
An experimental-analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Harle, K. The neural mechanisms of affect infusion in social economic decision-making: a mediating role of the anterior insula. Neuroimage 61, 32— Incidental sadness biases social economic decisions in the ultimatum game. Emotion 7, — Effects of approach and withdrawal motivation on interactive economic decisions.
Haruno, M. Activity in the amygdala elicited by unfair divisions predicts social value orientation. Activity in the nucleus accumbens and amygdala underlies individual differences in prosocial and individualistic economic choices. Hastie, R. Problems for judgment and decision making.
Hewig, J. Why humans deviate from rational choice. Psychophysiology 48, — Kahneman, D. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, — Karagonlar, G.
The role of social value orientation in response to an unfair offer in the ultimatum game. Kirk, D. Knoch, D. Studying the neurobiology of social interaction with transcranial direct current stimulation - The example of punishing unfairness. Cortex 18, — Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Knutson, B. Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences.
Nonverbal Behav. Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron 53, — I assume that students will describe their decision as rational as they will feel spited by their friend. This will lead them to rationalize why they are not helping their friend.
Each hypothesis has their own question and will be analyzed individually to determine their effect on and relationship with decision-making.
Forty-four participants were females and thirteen participants were male. No participant data was excluded. Participants were presented with 16 scenarios where they were required to form decisions regarding a close friend. For each scenario, participants responded with yes or no and rated how rational or emotional their decision was.
If participants responded yes, then they were given the resentment component as the additional information. If participants responded no and gave a rating of less than or equal to zero, then they were presented the sympathy component next. If participants responded no and gave a rating of greater than zero, they were presented with the obligation component next.
Participants then were able to change their initial decision if they desired, and they again rated how rational or emotional their decision was. Then participants completed a short demographic survey.
Participants were able to access the link for the survey through the Sona System and they completed the survey online through the Qualtrics survey site. The survey could be taken on a computer or cellphone. After clicking the link for the survey, the participant gave their consent to participating. They completed a sample scenario in order to understand the structure of the survey scenarios.
Participants were instructed to think of a good friend but not a best friend while making the decisions. They were told that they would make a decision regarding a friend and would have to decide whether the decision was more rationally or emotionally determined.
Depending on their initial answer, they would be presented with one type of additional information and would have the opportunity to change or keep their answer.
Following this, they would again determine whether their decision was based on rationality or emotion. Three 2X2 within-subjects ANOVAs were performed to test for main effects and interactions for each of the three obligation components based on context and information. Paired t-tests were performed comparing the variables that participants responded to. These variables included their initial answer and initial rating to the scenario, as well as their answer and rating to the obligation, sympathy, and resentment components.
Percent change in yes responses for emotional components in academic and social scenarios. The following values describe the percent change in yes responses for each emotional component under academic scenarios.
The following values describe the percent change in yes responses for each emotional component under social scenarios. Is there an effect of context, information, or both on the decisions made when presented with an obligation component? A 2 context: academic versus social x 2 information: initial versus new within-groups ANOVA was performed to determine whether the ratings for the obligation component differed based on the context or the information presented.
The dependent measure was the ratings on the Rational-Emotional scale. For the obligation component, participants rated academic scenarios more emotionally than the social scenarios. Participants rated the initial information as more emotional than the new information.
The results are shown in Figure 1 below. Therefore, the interaction was driven by the change in ratings for the social scenarios.
The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 1 below. Table 1. Figure 1. Average rating on the Rational-Emotional scale for the initial academic obligation scenarios, new academic obligation scenarios, initial social obligation scenarios, and new social obligation scenarios. Is there an effect of context, information, or both on the decisions made when presented with a sympathy component? A 2 context: academic versus social x 2 information: initial versus new within-groups ANOVA was performed to determine whether the ratings for the sympathy component differed based on the context or the information presented.
Participants rated academic scenarios more rationally than the social scenarios. Participants rated the initial scenarios as more rational than the new ones. The results are shown in Figure 2 below. The change in ratings for the social scenarios was greater than the change in ratings for the academic scenarios. Thus, the interaction was driven by the change in ratings for social scenarios.
The means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2. Figure 2. Average rating on the Rational-Emotional scale for the initial academic sympathy scenarios, new academic sympathy scenarios, initial social sympathy scenarios, and new social sympathy scenarios. Is there an effect of context, information, or both on the decisions made when presented with a resentment component? A 2 context: academic versus social x 2 information: initial versus new within-groups ANOVA was performed to determine whether the ratings for the resentment component differed based on the context or the information presented.
Participants rated academic scenarios less emotionally than the social scenarios. There were differences between the initial and new statements for both academic and social scenarios. The results are shown in Figure 3 below.
Therefore, the interaction was driven by the change in ratings for social scenarios. The means and standard deviation are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3. Figure 3. Average rating on the Rational-Emotional scale for the initial academic resentment scenarios, new academic resentment scenarios, initial social resentment scenarios, and new social resentment scenarios.
Are there differences in initial ratings of academic and social scenarios based on context? A paired t-test was performed to determine whether the rating on the Rational-Emotional scale differed between academic and social scenarios. Are there differences between the ratings for obligation and sympathy components in academic scenarios? A paired t-test was used to determine whether the rating on the Rational-Emotional Scale differed between the obligation and sympathy components for academic scenarios.
Are there differences between the ratings for obligation and sympathy components in social scenarios? A paired t-test was used to determine whether the ratings for the social scenarios that included sympathy components would be more rational than the ratings for the obligation components. The average rating on the Rational-Emotional scale for the obligation components of the social scenarios was 1.
Are there differences between the initial ratings for academic and social scenarios and the new ratings for resentment components for both of these scenarios? In this study, participants had the option to use rationality or emotion in the decisions they made. Emotion plays a different role as a person will have to take how they feel and their state of being into consideration when coming to a decision. There were multiple goals of the study.
These included looking for differences in how students responded to academic versus social scenarios and looking for differences in responses to emotional components within the scenarios. It is often easier to make a decision regarding oneself than to make a decision involving another person. But it becomes challenging when a person feels motivated to make a certain decision despite their own circumstances.
In terms of obligation, a person may feel influenced to help someone due to feeling guilty since they owe their friend a favor. With sympathy, a person feels motivated to help someone due to feeling sorry for them or feeling pity for them. With resentment, a person may feel less inclined to help their friend because they may be holding a grudge due to lack of support. The first element that was individually analyzed was obligation. I was able to conclude that the effect of context on the ratings for the obligation component differed based on the information presented.
When students received academic scenarios, they rated their decision from the initial obligation information as less emotionally based than their decision with the new obligation information. When students were presented with social scenarios, they rated their decision from the initial obligation information as more emotionally based than their decision with the new obligation information.
Although evidence supported the interaction, the ratings for the initial and new information did not differ for academic scenarios while the ratings differed for the social scenarios. The ratings for the obligation components differed based on the context where academic scenarios were rated more emotionally than social scenarios.
The ratings for the obligation components also differed based on the information presented where participants overall rated the initial information more emotionally than the new information.
Many factors must be taken into consideration in order to come to a truly optimal and beneficial decision Saaty, One factor is context. Academics as a whole are often held in high regard; initially students respond to obligation components emotionally. With the new information, the response was still emotional, but they now had more context and would feel that it would be on them if their friend did not succeed.
Therefore, the person responded more emotionally. Academics were looked at in the same light regardless of whether one felt obligated to do something or not. When a person feels forced to do an activity, they will see it less emotionally and begin to rationally consider alternative options. Therefore, the rating for the new information was much less emotional than the rating for the initial information.
Social scenarios were looked at differently potentially due to a person truly considering whether they would want to do an activity they did not like, and whether it was worth it to return the favor.
Next, the emotional component, sympathy, was looked at in terms of context and information. The effect of context on the ratings for the sympathy components demonstrated differences based on the information presented.
When students received academic scenarios or social scenarios, they rated the initial information more rationally than the new information.
There were differences between the ratings for the initial and new information for both academic and social scenarios. The ratings for the sympathy components differed based on the context where participants rated academic scenarios more rationally than the social scenarios. The ratings for the sympathy components also differed based on the information presented where participants rated their decisions from the initial scenarios as more rational than the decisions from the new information.
A person will rationally consider the needs of someone else and analyze the potential outcomes if they did not help. They will have to look at the level of disruption to their lives if they helped their friend. Doing this would cause them to overlook the potential negative impact that the decision may have on themselves. With academic and social scenarios, the initial information was very rationally considered in the creation of a decision.
When the new information was presented, the ratings shifted, and the decisions were more emotionally rated. The ratings shifted the most for the social scenarios where they were fully emotional. Participants most likely felt pity for their friend and were more willing to assist them as needed. Helping their friend in a social situation provided less of a chance to affect the person negatively and therefore one could emotionally react.
Lastly, the resentment component was analyzed. The effect of context on the ratings for the resentment components demonstrated differences based on the information presented. Students rated the initial information as less emotional than the new information when given academic scenarios. Students rated the initial information as more emotional than the new information when given social scenarios. There were differences between the ratings for the initial and new information for social scenarios but not for academic scenarios.
The ratings for the resentment components differed based on the context where participants rated academic scenarios less emotionally than the social scenarios. The ratings for the resentment components also differed based on the information presented where participants rated their decisions from the initial scenarios as more emotional than the decisions from the new information.
When presented with a resentment statement, students initially reacted emotionally as they had been wronged by their friend and felt less inclined to help them. With academic scenarios, the person responds even more emotionally to new information, possibly because their success is affected, and they feel less of a desire to help their friend.
On the other hand, with social scenarios, the person responded less emotionally to new information. This may be due to the person thinking through their options and feeling that it is not worth their time to feel upset over the situation. It was predicted that there was a difference between participants' initial ratings to academic and social scenarios. The ratings differed between the two variables and the hypothesis was supported. Participants considered their initial responses to the academic scenarios to be more rational than their responses to the social scenarios.
Participants may feel that anything that may impact their academic success, negatively or positively, must be carefully considered from all aspects. This would cause participants to respond more rationally to the academic scenarios. In an ever-changing environment, this is the only way an organism can survive.
This emotional reaction happens suddenly and unconsciously. Then, usually after an extremely short period of time, we become aware of those changes. We become aware of them only after responsive hormones have entered our bloodstream and we experience them as a feeling of being frightened or perhaps inferior.
Awareness that there is a constant and complex dance between emotions and feelings could significantly improve your emotional intelligence, including your decision making ability. All well and good you perhaps say, but how does an understanding of this help us make choices that are actually beneficial in the long run, and not, perhaps, just perceived as beneficial in the short run? We do that by focusing on the resulting feeling. In other words, we need to consider how any particular emotion inner circle will translate into a feeling outer circle.
For example, we can readily see that the emotion of disgust is just a general revulsion. Only when we see this final result can we effectively utilize knowledge of emotions and feelings in the decision making process.
0コメント