New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Study Suggests Emotion Plays a Role in Rational Decision-Making

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Choosing when to schedule a doctor's appointment or whether to fasten your seatbelt might not seem like emotional tasks, but a new study suggests that in fact people use the emotional part of the brain to make rational decisions for themselves. The findings, presented yesterday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, lend weight to the notion that the emotional and rational parts of the brain may overlap more than previously thought.

Dean Shibata of the University of Washington posed a series of personal and impersonal questions to 11 test subjects, requesting that they mull the questions over for a few seconds while MRI scanners measured their brain activity. "The point was to test the hypothesis that when people make decisions that affect their own lives, they will utilize emotional parts of the brain, even though the task itself may not seem emotional," Shibata explains. In the case of the seatbelt decision, for example, "that seems like a very rational kind of thing," he remarks. "But it's also very emotional¿you can envision that you are going to die, that you could hit your head on the windshield, if you don't put your seatbelt on." As it turns out, people making these kinds of so-called personal rational decisions exhibited activity in the ventromedial frontal lobe¿the part of the brain that governs emotion. In contrast, those thinking impersonally about, say, the comparative financial costs of two events, displayed no such brain activity.

The research results fit neatly with earlier work suggesting that patients who have sustained damage to the emotional part of the brain can solve abstract problems but struggle with personal rational decisions. Looking forward, Shibata expects that the work could lead to insights into mental illnesses as well. "Hopefully by understanding how our rational and emotional sides come together, we can understand more about psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia, and ultimately how to treat them."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and was formerly senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe