Article 1:

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. 2001. Risk as
feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 267-286.

a. Why am I reading this?

Part of my reading to answer the review question: ‘What are the major theoretical
models that explain how emotion/affect influence thinking and behavior in
organizations and how does incorporating ‘hot’ emotional influences alongside ‘cold’
cognitive influences change our view of the determinants of choice and actions in
organizations?’

b. What are the authors trying to do in writing this?

They appear to be proposing an alternative research agenda to the prevalent

literature on ‘choice under risk’ (that they argue is predominantly cognitive and
consequentialist focused) that highlights the role of affect experienced at the moment
of decision making in shaping the outcome of the decision process. In particular they
attempt to illustrate that whilst emotional reactions often drive decisions in response
to ‘risky’ situations, the decisions arising often diverge from the a purely cognitive
assessment of the risk. By doing this they hope to throw light on a wide range of
phenomena that appear to resist explanation through the more traditional cognitive-
consequentialist approach to decision making behavior.

c. What are the author’s saying that is relevant to what I want to find out?

The author’s posit that people react to risk on 2 different levels: At the ‘cold’
cognitive level they evaluate the risk based on probabilities and outcomes before
reacting to it at the ‘hot’ emotional level. Furthermore, they propose that, due to
different determinants, cognitive and affective risk assessments often diverge and
hence the behavioral outcome should therefore be viewed as an interplay between
these two processes.

In order to develop their argument, the authors make the distinction between
anticipatory and anticipated emotions; the former relating to an immediate emotional
state at the time of the decision (such as fear, anxiety and dread) and the latter
relating to the expected emotions that are likely to arise as a result of the decision
process. From a cognitive, consequentialist perspective, (whereby individuals make
decisions based on the likely consequences of possible choices) anticipated
emotions are thought by some researchers to play a role in decision making through
virtue of an evaluation of likely emotional outcomes (alongside objective outcomes)
e.g. will a particular outcome enhance or threaten my well being. However, whilst
anticipatory emotions are thought to be in some way affected by the decision making
process, unlike anticipated emotions they themselves play no role in the final
decision outcome1. In order to counter this apparent lack of ‘anticipatory’ feedback
1
i.e. they are affected by, but do not affect, the decision process.
into the decision process the authors highlight a range of research that suggests that
anticipatory emotions (feelings) can arise independent of the cognitive process and
that they can directly influence both the ongoing cognitive process and behavioral
outcome. In other words ‘current emotions’ can and do play a direct part in decision
making and can often lead to seemingly contradictory outcomes to decisions that
arise purely as a result of a logical, linear process (i.e. the heart can rule the mind?)
In other words a seemingly a logical decision process, based on a cognitive
assessment of probability of outcome, can be overruled by (subliminal?) emotional
factors.

Article 2.

Seo, M. G., & Barrett, L. F. 2007. Being emotional during decision making-good
or bad? An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4):
923-940.

a. Why am I reading this?

See above.

b. What are the authors trying to do in writing this?

The authors are looking to counter the predominant argument within management
research and organizational practice that emotions are generally counter-productive
within the organizational decision making primarily due to their introducing ‘unwanted
biases’ into the process. In particular they are seeking to demonstrate that ‘feelings’,
if properly utilized can enhance the decision making process and by doing so
stimulate further research that recognizes and investigates the role of affective
influence in facilitating the decision process.

c. What are the authors saying that is relevant to what I want to find out?

The authors highlight 2 contrasting approaches within the current (as of 2007)
literature regarding the role of emotions in decision making. On the one hand
emotions (feelings) are viewed as being bias inducers within the decision process
that can adversely affect the quality of the decision output 2. On the other hand some
researchers have proposed that feelings, if properly handled, can enhance decision
performance by facilitating and enabling the decision making process. The article
focuses on presenting evidence for the latter.

Prior to presenting their own study into decision performance and emotions the
authors present a number of research articles that suggest that emotions can
enhance decision performance in a number of ways 3 including; the allocation of
working memory to the decision process (enhanced decision making capacity?); the
minimizing of seemingly limitless factors within a problem set through the provision
2
Known as ‘Feelings-as-bias-inducer’
3
Known as ‘Feeings-as-decision-facilitator’
of an immediate (cognitive independent?) affective evaluation based on ‘goodness or
badness’ of the potential outcome thereby immediately reducing the options
available; and by influencing either creative decision making in times of harmony or
systematic, unbiased decision making in times of crises (my interpretation). In other
words they facilitate the kick starting of the decision style (systematic v creative)
most likely to achieve the desired outcome.

In order to reconcile the apparent dichotomy between feelings ‘as bias inducer’ and
‘as decision facilitator’, the authors posit that the way in which individuals handle and
experience their feelings is critical to whether or not they (i.e. feelings) constrain or
enhance the decision process. Furthermore, they argue that given the evidence that
suggests the ‘how’ people handle their feelings is independent of the ‘what’ they
subsequently do as a result of their feelings, it is this that gives rise to the to the
competing perspectives i.e. the-feelings-as-bias is concerned with the former
whereas the feelings- as- facilitator is concerned with the latter. Consequently, they
propose that by both experiencing and simultaneously regulating their feelings
individuals can enhance their decision process. Furthermore, they also posit that the
degree to which individuals can experience feelings and their ability to control
feelings within the decision cycle act both independently and interactively to inform
the decision process.

d. How convincing is what the authors are saying.

The underlying themes identified by the literature review present a reasonable

argument to support the proposition that moderated emotions can facilitate better
decision making. However I would argue that the empirical investigation utilized by
the authors to explore the relationship between affect and decision making is to
narrow in its scope and doesn’t counter for all possible variables within the
experimental scenario. Indeed this is a criticism that could be leveled at the majority
of scenario based investigations into the role of emotion in decision making. I would
question the ability to ‘operationalize’ such subjective controls such as feelings
although this may well be the latent ‘qualitative, constructionist’ within me finding
difficulty with the empirical, positivistic methodology employed. The authors appear
to acknowledge that removing emotions from the decision cycle is one way of
dealing with dysfunctional bias, but argue that by utilizing moderated emotions, in
which individuals recognize and account for these biases, better decisions can
ultimately arise..

Article 3

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Organizational behavior: Affect in the

workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 279-307

a. Why am I reading this?

See above

b. What are the authors trying to do in writing this?

The authors are attempting to highlight the role of affective experience within
organizational settings and in particular the role of mood and environmental
interpretation in facilitating perceived ‘job satisfaction’.

c. What are the authors saying that is relevant to what I want to find out?

In conducting a historical review of research into ‘job satisfaction’ the authors

highlight the gradual shift from a purely cognitive approach to perceived job
satisfaction towards one which considers affective dispositions (moods/feelings) as
being partial determinants to the way in which people perceive, and are happy with,
their working environment. They also highlight what they perceive to be
methodological shortcomings in more recent research whereby affective implications
are still measured in cognitive terms. Within the affective domain, they draw on 2
differing views of affectivity; one being that the experience of pleasant affect over
time and dispositional happiness leads to positive satisfaction judgments (i.e.
personality/mood ‘causes’ work job satisfaction). The other view is that the way in
which an individual interprets or construes the objective circumstances of their job is
directly related to job satisfaction. The author’s posit that whilst the 2 models could
be said to empirically opposed to each other, it would appear to be more reasonable
to assume that some measure of both mood and interpretations of work
circumstances combine to influence perceptions of job satisfaction. Implicit in this, I
would suggest, is a methodological shift from a positivist/empiricist view, through an
interpretive social constructionist view with the authors attempting to reconcile them
by applying a critical realist approach???

The authors go on to highlight the broad field of study but raise concerns about the
narrow research methods employed. In particular they highlight the imbalance
between the study of aggregated ‘mood’ as a general feeling over the study of more
discrete emotions that individuals experience over time.

d. How convincing is what the authors are saying.

The paper itself appears to be more suggestive than directive in nature and makes a
useful contribution to my limited knowledge regarding the role of mood job
satisfaction. I concur with their attempt to reconcile affective disposition with
organizational environment however the paper lacks sufficient detail to support this
claim (other than the application of common sense?) - but it rightly identifies it as a
further avenue for investigation. From my own reading (and limited knowledge to
date) I am left with a sense of ‘so what?’ The paper does not appear to grapple with
the implications of high/low job satisfaction or the subsequent impact on decision
making? Furthermore, although the author’s appear to touch on the broad, highly
subjective nature of job satisfaction, I personally feel that, as with the previous
article, the challenge with trying to isolate emotions from all the other exogenous
factors (as discussed on page 286) leads any subsequent investigation open to
criticism.