Values: How Values Influence Mood, Attitude, and Emotions in Decision Making

Values influence moods, attitudes, and emotions in decision-making through several psychological and neurocognitive mechanisms. These mechanisms determine how individuals perceive, evaluate, and react to decision contexts, ultimately shaping their choices. The text outlines key mechanisms. The diagram below shows the variables in the mechanisms and their relationships, where each edge is labeled by the section in this text, where the given rule is introduced.

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

1. Emotional Salience and Value Congruence

• Mechanism: When a decision aligns with an individual’s core values, it triggers positive emotions (e.g., satisfaction, pride). Conversely, when a decision contradicts deeply held values, it generates negative emotions (e.g., guilt, frustration, regret).
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
  • Decision-makers feel greater confidence and enthusiasm when choices reinforce their values.
  • If a decision conflicts with their values, they may experience moral discomfort, leading to hesitation or emotional distress.
• Example: A manager valuing environmental sustainability may feel excitement about investing in green technologies but distress when forced to approve a project with high carbon emissions.

Rule: Value congruence → Positive emotions → Increased motivation → Decision confidence
Rule: Value conflict → Negative emotions → Cognitive dissonance → Decision hesitation

2. Cognitive Dissonance and Emotional Regulation

• Mechanism: When individuals face decisions that contradict their values, they experience cognitive dissonance, a psychological state of discomfort. To reduce this tension, they engage in emotional regulation strategies, such as reinterpreting the situation, justifying their decision, or changing their behavior.
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
  • Decision-makers may rationalize choices that conflict with their values to maintain self-consistency.
  • Alternatively, they might adjust their values over time if repeated dissonance occurs.
• Example: A leader who values transparency but must withhold information due to legal constraints may justify it by emphasizing the greater good of protecting stakeholders.

Rule: Value conflict → Cognitive dissonance → Emotional regulation (rationalization or adaptation) → Value shift or justification

3. Attitude Formation and Reinforcement

• Mechanism: Values shape attitudes, which are stable predispositions to evaluate things as good or bad. Repeated exposure to value-relevant decisions strengthens these attitudes, making them more resistant to change.
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
  • Decision-makers with strong value-based attitudes filter information selectively, giving more weight to arguments supporting their pre-existing values.
  • Attitudes rooted in values influence policy and strategic preferences within organizations.
• Example: A CEO valuing innovation may consistently favor risky, high-tech investments over safer, incremental improvements.

Rule: Core values → Attitude formation → Selective information processing → Decision bias

4. Mood Congruency Effects

• Mechanism: Moods (general affective states) influence decision-making by biasing perception and information processing. Values contribute to mood regulation by reinforcing a person’s sense of purpose, meaning, and identity.
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
  • Positive moods enhance risk tolerance and creativity, making individuals more open to exploring new options.
  • Negative moods increase risk aversion and cautious decision-making, leading to more defensive choices.
• Example: A social entrepreneur valuing altruism may experience a positive mood boost when approving projects that align with their vision, leading to more proactive investment.

Rule: Value reinforcement → Positive mood → Increased risk tolerance → Creative decision-making
Rule: Value conflict → Negative mood → Increased caution → Defensive decision-making

5. Emotional Priming and Heuristic Thinking

• Mechanism: Values can act as emotional primers, activating specific emotional responses that shape intuitive (heuristic-based) decision-making.
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
  • Decisions made under time pressure often rely on emotional heuristics, where values directly guide choices without extensive deliberation.
  • Strong emotional associations with certain values lead to snap judgments, favoring options that align with those values.
• Example: A doctor valuing patient autonomy may instinctively prioritize treatments that maximize personal choice without fully analyzing all medical alternatives.

Rule: Value-based emotional priming → Heuristic decision-making → Faster but less analytical choices

6. Risk Perception and Loss Aversion

• Mechanism: Values influence how risks and losses are perceived, altering emotional responses to uncertainty.
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
  • Individuals valuing stability and security tend to perceive higher risks, leading to conservative decisions.
  • Those prioritizing growth and innovation see risks as opportunities, making them more tolerant of uncertainty.
• Example: A CFO valuing financial prudence may experience anxiety over high-risk investments, while a venture capitalist prioritizing bold innovation feels excitement in the same scenario.

Rule: Value-driven risk perception → Emotional response to uncertainty → Risk-averse or risk-seeking decision framing

7. Social and Moral Emotions in Group Decision-Making

• Mechanism: Values trigger moral emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, pride) that influence how individuals behave in group settings.
• Implementation in Decision-Making:
• Leaders and decision-makers seek social validation when making value-laden choices.
• Decision-making in organizations often involves moral signaling, where individuals make choices that align with group expectations to maintain status.
• Example: A corporate executive in a sustainability-focused company may feel pressure to invest in green initiatives, even if they personally prioritize short-term financial returns.

Rule: Value-based social norms → Moral emotions → Social validation → Conformity in group decision-making

References

1. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-20.
2. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
3. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
4. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.
5. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
6. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.
7. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.