Cognitive chicken or the emotional egg? How reconceptualizing decision-making by integrating cognition and emotion can improve task psychometrics and clinical utility

Decision-making is an executive function, tapping into cognitive, emotional, and personality-based components. This complexity, and the varying operational definitions of the construct, is reflected in the rich array of behavioral decision-making tasks available for use in research and clinical settings. In many cases, these tasks are subfield-specific, with tasks developed by cognitive psychologists focusing on cognitive aspects of decision-making and tasks developed by clinical psychologists focusing on interactions between emotional and cognitive aspects. Critically, performance across different tasks does not consistently correlate, obfuscating the ability to compare scores between measures and detect changes over time. Differing theories as to what cognitive and/or emotional aspects affect decision-making likely contribute to this lack of consistency across measures. The low criterion-related validity among decision-making tasks and lack of consistent measurement of the construct presents challenges for emotion and decision-making scholars. In this perspective, we provide several recommendations for the field: (a) assess decision-making as a specific cognitive ability versus a taxonomy of cognitive abilities; (b) a renewed focus on convergent validity across tasks; (c) further assessment of test-retest reliability versus practice effects on tasks; and (d) reimagine future decision-making research to consider the research versus clinical implications. We discuss one example of decision-making research applied to clinical settings, acquired brain injury recovery, to demonstrate how some of these concerns and recommendations can affect the ability to track changes in decision-making across time.

Automated summary

Decision-making is a complex executive function that involves cognitive, emotional, and personality-based components. The lack of consistency in performance across different decision-making tasks makes it difficult to compare and track changes over time. Differing theories about the factors that influence decision-making contribute to the inconsistency in measurement. The low criterion-related validity and lack of consistent measurement pose challenges for scholars studying emotion and decision-making.