BazermanMoore

feedback on the decision not chosen is inevitable, they can make choices that are likely
to compare favorably to foregone options. In this context, it may be useful to have your
‘‘should’’ self compare the various outcomes. The two selves also will need to negotiate
with each other over the relative value of better outcomes (such as winning a silver
rather than a bronze medal) compared with the pain of regret.
SUMMARY
Summary 99
Too often, people view their emotions as uncontrollable. The fact is, even if we can’t
stop ourselves from feeling, we may be able to limit the negative effects of our emotions
on the quality of our decisions. Johnson and Tversky (1983) and Lerner, Goldberg, and
Tetlock (1998) note that people are typically unaware of the influence of their emotions
on their decisions. Thus, though we may feel that we are angry, we may falsely believe
that anger will not influence our judgment. Perhaps a better appreciation of the literature
can help create the knowledge that ‘‘Just like everyone else, I am affected by my
emotional state.’’ It may simply help to be more aware of the ways in which emotion can
bias our judgments.
To neutralize the negative impact of our emotions on our decisions, we must begin
by identifying our emotions and their sources. Labeling our emotions in itself can be an
effective means of reducing their strength (Lieberman, Eisenberger, Crockett, Tom,
Pfeifer, & Way, 2007). It is well known among emotion researchers, for instance, that
asking research participants to explicitly identify their emotional state can often eliminate
the effect of an emotional manipulation. But unpleasant emotions are sometimes
even more effectively neutralized by identifying the source of the emotion because
doing so allows people to react to the causal stimulus with System 2’s more cognitive
assessments, rather than with System 1’s impulsive and emotional reactions. Earlier we
noted that the weather influences people’s reports of life satisfaction. But consider what
happens when, just before asking about a question about life satisfaction, a pollster asks
a respondent, ‘‘So how’s the weather where you are?’’ This question eliminates the effect
of weather on responses to the life-satisfaction question (Schwarz & Strack, 1999).
Another strategy for managing the negative impact of emotions is to make decision
makers accountable for their choices. Lerner and Tetlock (1999) have found that study
participants who must in some way justify their decisions learn to hold their emotions in
check and move toward more systematic, System 2 thinking. This may be because such
articulation is itself a System 2 process or because verbalization can neutralize an emotion.
To create such accountability for yourself, you might report your rationale for a
decision to your boss or simply write down for yourself an explanation for your decision.
Logically and empirically, the simple cognition of accountability has the ability to reduce
the likelihood of acting on emotions in ways that you will later regret.
Finally, it may be possible to institutionalize controls on emotion. It is widely
known that government policies can be overly influenced by the vividness of various
issues (see Chapter 2). As a result, we as a society tend to allocate scarce resources to
vivid concerns rather than to the issues for which scarce resources would do the most
good. Why? Vivid stories create emotional reactions; these emotions, in turn, lead us to
misallocate scarce resources. Sunstein (2002) argues, ‘‘Just as the Senate was designed