Attention → Emotion: How Attention Mediates Emotions in Decision Making

From the standpoint of governing decisions, if we design a decision situation or process in a way which influences attention, then we will also, indirectly influence emotions of people involved in that decision. If we take their perspective instead, they can, by controlling their attention, influence their emotions. Why and how can this happen, and are there regularities in how attention shapes emotions?

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.

Example: Investment Decision Under Market Volatility

A retail investor, Alex, is monitoring stock market trends to decide whether to sell, hold, or buy more shares of a technology company in a highly volatile market. Recent news reports highlight economic uncertainty, with some analysts predicting a downturn while others remain optimistic.

Below, four mechanisms for how attention influences emotions are used to describe how Alex might behave.

1. Attentional Bias (Negativity Bias)
   • Alex is exposed to both positive and negative financial news. However, due to negativity bias, he focuses more on articles predicting a market crash.
   • Selective attention toward negative information → Amplified emotional engagement with fear-based narratives → Increased perception of risk.
   • As a result, Alex becomes more anxious about potential losses.
2. Selective Attention and Emotion Regulation
   • If Alex continues focusing on negative market signals, fear increases, making him more likely to make a risk-averse decision (e.g., selling stocks prematurely).
   • If Alex shifts attention toward long-term growth trends and historical data showing market recovery patterns, reduced attentional focus on emotional stimuli leads to lower emotional engagement → More rational decision-making.
3. Attentional Control and Cognitive Load
   • If Alex is overwhelmed with too much information (e.g., social media speculation, expert reports, real-time price fluctuations), high cognitive load reduces his ability to filter emotional responses.
   • Reduced attentional control → Greater reliance on emotional heuristics (e.g., assuming that recent losses indicate future losses) → Emotion-driven decision (panic selling).
4. Cognitive Appraisal and Attentional Framing
   • If Alex reinterprets the same situation using a long-term investment perspective (reappraisal), he shifts attention toward potential gains rather than short-term losses.
   • Selective attention toward long-term growth signals → Reduced emotional reaction to market fluctuations → More balanced risk assessment → Decision to hold or invest more.

If Alex remains focused on short-term losses, he is likely to make a fear-driven, risk-averse decision (selling stocks prematurely). If he actively reframes his attention toward long-term data, he may regulate emotions more effectively, leading to a more rational, strategic investment decision.

Mechanisms Explaining How Attention Influences Emotions in Decision-Making

Academic research highlights several mechanisms through which attention modulates emotions and, consequently, affects decision-making. These mechanisms can be broadly categorized into attentional biases, selective attention, attentional control, and the role of cognitive appraisal. The diagram below visualizes the mechanisms through variables and labeled edges reflecting the rules used to describe each mechanism. Labels match section numbers below.

1. Attentional Biases and Emotion in Decision-Making

Attentional biases refer to the tendency of individuals to selectively focus on certain stimuli, particularly those that are emotionally salient. Research has demonstrated that attentional biases can shape the emotional impact of decision-related information, altering risk perception, valuation, and choices.

1.1. Negativity Bias

Negativity bias suggests that negative stimuli capture attention more strongly than positive or neutral stimuli (Baumeister et al., 2001). Individuals who focus on negative information tend to perceive situations as more risky and respond more cautiously. In financial decision-making, for example, investors who pay excessive attention to negative market news may engage in loss aversion, leading them to sell assets prematurely or avoid high-risk, high-reward opportunities (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Negative stimuli → Increased attentional focus
• Increased attentional focus → Amplified emotional engagement
• Amplified emotional engagement → Heightened perception of risk
• Heightened perception of risk → Increased loss aversion
• Increased loss aversion → More conservative decision-making

1.2. Threat Detection and Fear-Based Decisions

Evolutionary psychology suggests that humans are hardwired to prioritize attention to threats, a mechanism critical for survival (Öhman & Mineka, 2001). This heightened sensitivity to potential threats can lead to fear-based decision-making, where individuals disproportionately focus on negative consequences. In legal settings, for example, jurors exposed to crime scene imagery may overestimate the likelihood of recidivism and favor harsher sentences (Löw et al., 2015). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Selective attention toward emotional stimuli → Increased attentional focus
• Increased attentional focus → Amplified emotional engagement
• Amplified emotional engagement → Greater reliance on emotional heuristics
• Greater reliance on emotional heuristics → Emotion-driven decision-making

1.3. Positivity Bias and Optimism

While negativity bias dominates in high-risk situations, positivity bias can shape decision-making in contexts where individuals seek reward or gratification (Sharot et al., 2011). Individuals with a strong positivity bias tend to selectively attend to optimistic information, leading to overconfidence and an underestimation of risks. This can be seen in entrepreneurial decision-making, where founders often disregard failure rates and focus on success stories, thereby influencing their risk-taking behavior (Baron, 2008). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Positive stimuli → Increased attentional focus
• Increased attentional focus → Amplified emotional engagement
• Amplified emotional engagement → Reduced perception of risk
• Reduced perception of risk → Increased optimism
• Increased optimism → Greater risk-taking behavior

2. Selective Attention and Emotion Regulation

Selective attention, the process by which individuals allocate cognitive resources to specific stimuli while ignoring others, plays a crucial role in emotion regulation and subsequent decision-making (Gross, 2002). The way individuals direct their attention toward or away from emotional stimuli can determine their level of emotional engagement, ultimately shaping their choices.

2.1. Attentional Disengagement and Emotional Detachment

Selective attention can be strategically used to disengage from emotionally charged stimuli, thereby reducing their impact on decision-making. This is particularly relevant in professional settings, such as medical decision-making, where doctors must regulate their emotional responses to distressing patient cases to make objective clinical judgments (Dehaene & Changeux, 2011). Research suggests that training in attentional disengagement can improve decision quality by minimizing the influence of emotions such as fear or empathy on judgment (Phelps, Lempert, & Sokol-Hessner, 2014). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Selective attention away from emotional stimuli → Reduced attentional focus
• Reduced attentional focus → Decreased emotional engagement
• Decreased emotional engagement → Reduced perception of risk
• Reduced perception of risk → More rational decision-making

2.2. Attentional Focus and Amplification of Emotion

Conversely, focusing attention on emotionally charged information can amplify emotional responses, making them more influential in decision-making. This is evident in consumer behavior, where marketing strategies often leverage attentional focus to enhance the emotional appeal of products. Studies show that when consumers are guided to focus on positive product attributes (e.g., the experience of driving a luxury car), their emotional engagement increases, leading to higher willingness to pay (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Selective attention toward emotional stimuli → Increased attentional focus
• Increased attentional focus → Amplified emotional engagement
• Amplified emotional engagement → Greater reliance on emotional heuristics
• Greater reliance on emotional heuristics → Emotion-driven decision-making

3. Attentional Control and Cognitive Load

Attentional control, the ability to regulate focus in the presence of competing stimuli, influences the extent to which emotions affect decision-making. Cognitive load—the amount of mental effort required for a task—determines whether individuals rely on emotional heuristics or engage in more deliberative processing (Evans & Stanovich, 2013).

3.1. Cognitive Load and Emotional Heuristics

When cognitive resources are depleted, individuals are more likely to rely on emotional heuristics—intuitive shortcuts based on affective responses—rather than analytical reasoning (Slovic et al., 2007). For example, under time pressure, decision-makers tend to rely on their immediate emotional reactions, leading to decisions that may be suboptimal. This is particularly evident in high-stakes environments such as emergency response teams, where stress and cognitive load increase reliance on instinctive, emotionally driven decisions (Klein, 1998). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Increased cognitive load → Reduced attentional control
• Reduced attentional control → Increased attentional focus on emotional stimuli
• Increased attentional focus on emotional stimuli → Amplified emotional engagement
• Amplified emotional engagement → Greater reliance on emotional heuristics
• Greater reliance on emotional heuristics → Faster but less deliberative decision-making

3.2. Cognitive Control and Emotion Suppression

Research suggests that individuals with high cognitive control can suppress emotional influences and engage in more rational decision-making (Pessoa, 2009). This is particularly relevant in financial decision-making, where experienced investors demonstrate greater resistance to market volatility by regulating their emotional reactions to fluctuations (Lo et al., 2005). Neuroimaging studies reveal that prefrontal cortex activation, associated with cognitive control, reduces emotional interference, allowing for more calculated decision-making (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• High cognitive control → Increased attentional disengagement from emotional stimuli
• Increased attentional disengagement from emotional stimuli → Reduced emotional engagement
• Reduced emotional engagement → Decreased reliance on emotional heuristics
• Decreased reliance on emotional heuristics → More rational decision-making

4. Cognitive Appraisal and Attention-Emotion Interactions

Cognitive appraisal theory posits that emotions arise from the interpretation and evaluation of events, rather than the events themselves (Lazarus, 1991). Attention plays a central role in shaping cognitive appraisals, thereby influencing the emotional responses that guide decision-making.

4.1. Reappraisal and Emotion Regulation

Reappraisal involves shifting attention to reinterpret emotional stimuli in a way that alters their emotional impact (Gross & John, 2003). For example, in negotiations, individuals who reframe a conflict as an opportunity for collaboration rather than a threat are more likely to reach favorable outcomes. Research indicates that training in cognitive reappraisal enhances decision-making under stress by reducing the influence of anxiety and fear (Richards, 2004). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Shifted attentional focus to reinterpret stimuli → Reduced attentional focus on emotional aspects
• Reduced attentional focus on emotional aspects → Decreased emotional engagement
• Decreased emotional engagement → Reduced perception of risk
• Reduced perception of risk → More balanced decision-making

4.2. Attentional Framing and Decision Outcomes

Attentional framing refers to the way information is presented and attended to, which can shape emotional responses and subsequent decisions. Studies on the framing effect suggest that when attention is directed toward potential gains, individuals exhibit risk-averse behavior, whereas attention to potential losses increases risk-seeking tendencies (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). This has implications for public policy, where framing messages about health risks (e.g., smoking cessation campaigns) can influence behavioral choices by altering emotional responses to risks (Rothman & Salovey, 1997). The mechanism is summarized as follows.

• Selective attention toward potential gains → Reduced perception of risk
• Selective attention toward potential losses → Increased perception of risk
• Increased perception of risk → Risk-averse decision-making
• Reduced perception of risk → Risk-seeking decision-making

References

• Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
• Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328-340.
• Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336-372.
• Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70(2), 200-227.
• Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.
• Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 13(3), 214-217.
• Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
• Klein, G. (1998). Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. MIT Press.
• Lo, A. W., Repin, D. V., & Steenbarger, B. N. (2005). Fear and greed in financial markets: A clinical study of day traders. American Economic Review, 95(2), 352-359.
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46(4), 352-367.
• Löw, A., Lang, P. J., Smith, J. C., & Bradley, M. M. (2015). Both predator and prey: Emotional arousal in threat and reward. Psychological Science, 26(1), 78-92.
• Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483-522.
• Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 160-166.
• Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol-Hessner, P. (2014). Emotion and decision making: Multiple modulatory neural circuits. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 263-287.
• Richards, J. M. (2004). The cognitive consequences of concealing feelings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 131-134.
• Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.
• Sharot, T., Korn, C. W., & Dolan, R. J. (2011). How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience, 14(11), 1475-1479.
• Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278-292.
• Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.