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 senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has 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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe