According to earlier studies, emotions are omnipresent. They have an essential effect on the individuals’ behaviour and thus the decision making. Take for example the impact of anger on judgment and it’s influence on cognition, and how the incidental anger in one situation can result in misattributed blame in another (Tedeschi and Quigley 1996). Again,According to Aristotle, “Anyone can become angry,that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not easy” (Aristotle 350BCE 2004).
This is a clear evidence that emotions govern and organize not only social life but also the individuals’ psychological disorders and wellbeing (Keltner et al 2014).
At the macro level researchers have focused on positive correlation and negative one. They found that there is positive correlation between the stock market performance across 26 countries and the sunny weather on a given day(Hirshleifer&Shumway, 2003,Kamstra et al 2003).On the other hand, stock market performance decline when the country’s soccer team got eliminated from the world cup(Edmans et al 2007)There is also a positive correlation between school achievements and attendance, and a negative correlation between low esteem and depression. In fact, these types of studies play a vital role in measuring public mood and emotions.
[20:28, 9/6/2018] Eva: However, when it comes to individuals with high emotional intelligence, the story is different! WHY?! Because those people identify, use, understand and manage their emotions in an effective way. They are able to identify which event has caused their emotions and screen out the potential impact of such incidental emotion. For instance, people who have been informed about the incidental source of anxiety showed less impact on their risk estimates(Yip and Cote 2013)Most early literature on emotion and JDM implicitly or explicitly took a valence based approach but such models CANNOT account for all influences of effect upon judgment and choice. For example, emotions of the same valence, such as anger and sadness, are associated with different antecedent appraisals (Smith & Ellsworth1985),depths of processing (Bodenhausen et al 1994b),brain hemispheric activation (Harmon-Jones&Sigelman 2001),facial expressions (Ekman 2007),autonomic responses (Levenson et al 1990)and central nervous system activity (Phelps et al in press). At least as far as 1998,an
Annual Review of Psychology on JDM noted the insufficiency of valence and arousal in predicting JDM outcomes.
[21:02, 9/6/2018] Eva: To prove this, a simple comparison has been drawn between emotions of the same valence, fear and anger(Lerner, Li, Valdesolo and Kassam 2014) Fear and anger have been characterized in 6 dimensions identified by Smith and Ellsworth :certainty, intention, pleasantness, anticipated effort, activity control and others’ responsibility. Anger scores low on the dimensions of pleasantness and high on certainty, control and othes’ responsibility while fear involves low sense of control and low certainty. This means thay fearful people are tending to see bigger risk unlike angry people who will tend to see lesser risk.
[21:21, 9/6/2018] Eva: An early study consistent with the ATF examined the effects of anger and sadness upon causal attributions. Although both anger and sadness have negative valence, appraisals of individual control characterize anger, whereas appraisals of situational control characterize sadness. Consistent with this hypothesis, incidental anger increased attributions of individual responsibility for life outcomes, while incidental sadness increased the tendency to perceive fate or situational circumstances as responsibility for life outcomes.