4.6 The Threat Factor
Threats can influence decision and the response to threats is usually to strike or cause an onslaught. Garcia (2005) defines a threat as any intention to cause harm, damage or adverse action on someone or a group as a form of punishment or otherwise (p. 67). Decision arising from threats are usually centralized and sometimes irrational but very focused. That is why while such decisions may have long-lasting effect they also be unfavorable and those who made them may regret in the future. The decision emanating from threats also cause stress and the decision-maker to experience physiological and mental reaction that can have dramatic repercussions on the individual’s perception. For instance, when the US was attacked …show more content…
132). The authors once compared the effect of negative and positive emotion on people’s demeanor and behavior and discovered that those with persistent negative emotions relied on stereotypes as well as heuristic tip on others, while those with persistent positive emotions were likely to not judge others or use stereotypical views. This however, does not show any one of such thoughts to be better than the other when it comes to decision-making, but it suggests that individuals should be signaled by their emotional states when making decisions. Also, those with persistent negative emotions have a positive outlook of their own position and perspective (Aquilar & Gallucio, 2010, p. 128). One can also argue that the difference between a positive and a negative emotion is the extent of processing either positive or negative thoughts. Even though both emotions are processes with same level of intense degree, they both have different …show more content…
Even groups that have a unanimous decision choose to identify with that decision based on their cognition and emotions, such as solidarity or understanding. According to Steffgen and Gollwitzer (2007), emotions are intinsically social and they are adaptive meaaning that they require a comprehension of their complimentary influnce when in interacton with others (p. 212). For instance, some individuals derive pleasure simply from asisting others with no anticipation of any tangible gain revealing the complexity of the influence of emotions. Just as it would happen on the personal level, the same can be applied on a group level. But normally, it will depend on the trait of the people on the group and their perspective on certain issues and how they respond to them. Thus, emotion help to create social decisions through consultations with others to assist in handling both subtle and intense social engagements by providing knowledge about other people’s motivates and intentions and so help decision makers come to an appropriat decision. For instance, the decision by the US, UN, NATO and some European countries to engage in a no-fly zone over Libya may have considered the leader of the county at the time, the rebels and protestors and the probable outcomes of their decisions. Each of the decision maker would have had his or her own perception and asumption of all the variables needed to make a unanimous
Threats can influence decision and the response to threats is usually to strike or cause an onslaught. Garcia (2005) defines a threat as any intention to cause harm, damage or adverse action on someone or a group as a form of punishment or otherwise (p. 67). Decision arising from threats are usually centralized and sometimes irrational but very focused. That is why while such decisions may have long-lasting effect they also be unfavorable and those who made them may regret in the future. The decision emanating from threats also cause stress and the decision-maker to experience physiological and mental reaction that can have dramatic repercussions on the individual’s perception. For instance, when the US was attacked …show more content…
132). The authors once compared the effect of negative and positive emotion on people’s demeanor and behavior and discovered that those with persistent negative emotions relied on stereotypes as well as heuristic tip on others, while those with persistent positive emotions were likely to not judge others or use stereotypical views. This however, does not show any one of such thoughts to be better than the other when it comes to decision-making, but it suggests that individuals should be signaled by their emotional states when making decisions. Also, those with persistent negative emotions have a positive outlook of their own position and perspective (Aquilar & Gallucio, 2010, p. 128). One can also argue that the difference between a positive and a negative emotion is the extent of processing either positive or negative thoughts. Even though both emotions are processes with same level of intense degree, they both have different …show more content…
Even groups that have a unanimous decision choose to identify with that decision based on their cognition and emotions, such as solidarity or understanding. According to Steffgen and Gollwitzer (2007), emotions are intinsically social and they are adaptive meaaning that they require a comprehension of their complimentary influnce when in interacton with others (p. 212). For instance, some individuals derive pleasure simply from asisting others with no anticipation of any tangible gain revealing the complexity of the influence of emotions. Just as it would happen on the personal level, the same can be applied on a group level. But normally, it will depend on the trait of the people on the group and their perspective on certain issues and how they respond to them. Thus, emotion help to create social decisions through consultations with others to assist in handling both subtle and intense social engagements by providing knowledge about other people’s motivates and intentions and so help decision makers come to an appropriat decision. For instance, the decision by the US, UN, NATO and some European countries to engage in a no-fly zone over Libya may have considered the leader of the county at the time, the rebels and protestors and the probable outcomes of their decisions. Each of the decision maker would have had his or her own perception and asumption of all the variables needed to make a unanimous