The foundations of human behavior are among the most hotly debated topics in the field of psychology. Despite the impressive progress made in several recent decades, there was no conclusive evidence that a single factor is either solely or predominantly responsible for the resulting behavior. Two major candidates that are currently viewed as the most significant sources of influence are emotion and cognition. The emotion-driven theory suggests that our decisions are grounded in how we feel about the situation or action, while the more recent cognitive psychology states that our analysis of the situation is the primary driving force behind our decisions (Hunt, 2007).
The situation is complicated by the findings in the evolutionary psychology field, which show that the ultimate aim of both emotions and cognition processes are very similar and are evolutionary-based (Forgas, Haselton, & Hippel, 2011). This makes isolation of the primary cause of a decision nearly impossible to determine. Currently, the psychologists lean towards a more recognized cognitive model. However, some researchers point that emotion as a defining factor can not be ignored even despite the current consensus, as it plays at least an equally important role (Gutnik, Hakimzada, Yoskowitz, & Patel, 2006).
It is difficult to illustrate the prevalence of emotion as a driving force behind human behavior, as the example must clearly distinguish between the emotional and cognitive processes, which is a challenging task. However, a possible solution is an event where emotion is conflicting with the critical analysis of the situation. For example, we can imagine the event which I perceived as morally unacceptable but is otherwise harmless.
We can use a thought experiment suggested by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt. In an experiment, people are told about brother and sister who decide to make love while on vacation. They use several types of contraception to eliminate pregnancy, and the resulting experience is satisfactory. However, they agree not to repeat it or share the details with anyone. When asked to evaluate if there is anything wrong with the event, most people would respond positively, condemning the siblings’ behavior (Royzman, Kim, & Leeman, 2015). However, they fail at explaining the reason for the condemnation, usually pointing to adverse genetic effects for children born from close relatives.
When reminded about the contraception, they proceed to the possible psychological trauma. When this argument is discarded based on their satisfaction with the experience, they turn to possible negative social outcomes. Finally, when this assertion is negated by the fact that they managed to keep it a secret, people usually either continue to seek logical explanations in minor details or admit they “feel” it is wrong but cannot reasonably explain the reason behind it.
In this case, the emotion clearly defines the judgment, and would likely result in attitude towards the siblings. The cognitive process struggles to provide the justification, which in this case is challenging. However, in other circumstances, not suited to prove a point, this would likely be easier and would allow to “mask” the decision as originating in the thinking rather than the emotional domain.
It is important to mention that the described situation has its weak points. First, it is an experiment and would likely produce other results in an uncontrollable environment (Callies, Keller, & Lohöfer, 2011). Second, the topic selected by Haidt is deliberately highly sensitive and is thus culturally biased. It is unclear to what extent the emotions are defined by social and cultural norms – in other words, the result may be socially rather than emotionally driven. Nevertheless, the discussed situation clearly shows that emotion overrides the cognitive process at least in some instances, which suggests its importance for understanding and predicting behavior.
References
Callies, M., Keller, W., & Lohöfer, A. (2011). Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences: avenues, challenges, and limitations. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Forgas, J.P., Haselton, M.G., & Hippel, W. (2011). Evolution and the social mind: evolutionary psychology and social cognition. New York, NY: 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.
Hunt, M. (2007). The story of psychology. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Royzman, E. B., Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 296.