What a swallowed request turns into
A need that is said once and then taken back does not go away. It keeps running against a setting nobody else can see, it costs the body and the person across the table while it runs, and it comes
feelings as information
Meaning
An influential theory posits that emotional states provide data for cognitive processing and decision-making. feelings as information suggests that people use their current affective feelings as a source of information about the object of judgment. This operates especially when the judgment is complex, ambiguous, or lacks clear external criteria. The theory holds that emotions inform an individual about their current relationship to their environment or a specific situation.
It applies across a range of judgments, from consumer choices to complex social assessments, but is most salient when the emotional experience is mistakenly attributed to the judgment target itself.
Cognitive Function
The mechanism by which feelings inform judgment is often through a simple heuristic: if a person feels good, the object or situation is evaluated positively; if they feel bad, it is evaluated negatively. This process is particularly strong when the source of the feeling is unclear or ignored, leading to misattribution of the emotion to the target of judgment rather than its true origin. Feelings can influence assessments of risk, satisfaction, or fairness, providing a subjective “gut feeling” that shapes a cognitive evaluation without conscious deliberation.
For instance, a founder evaluating a new market opportunity might feel a general sense of unease, which they then attribute to the market’s viability, even if the unease originates from personal stress unrelated to the market itself. This function allows for rapid, low-effort assessments, bypassing more analytical and resource-intensive cognitive processes. The heuristic power of feelings means they can override objective information under certain conditions, even when that information would lead to a different conclusion or a more rational course of action.
This happens most reliably when the judgment itself is not highly consequential or when the individual is distracted.
Cost of Bias
Reliance on feelings as information introduces a specific cost: the potential for systematic bias in judgment. If an emotional state stems from an irrelevant source, such as a bad weather day, a recent argument, or an unrelated prior interaction, that feeling can mistakenly influence an assessment of an unrelated issue. This misattribution leads to decisions that are not aligned with objective reality or long-term goals, resulting in errors that are difficult to trace back to their origin.
For a founder, this bias can result in incorrect assessments of market opportunities, partner reliability, or operational risks, costing valuable time, capital, and trust with collaborators. The inability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant emotional cues imposes a direct operational penalty and can hinder growth or lead to misdirected effort.
Decision Context
The influence of feelings as information is most pronounced in situations where individuals lack clear, unambiguous information or sufficient cognitive resources for thorough analysis. When a decision is time-pressured, the information is complex, or the subject matter is novel, a founder is more likely to rely on their current emotional state to guide judgment. Conversely, when objective data is readily available and the decision-maker is motivated to engage in deliberate thought, the impact of these feelings diminishes substantially.
The theory primarily applies to judgments made under conditions of uncertainty or high cognitive load, where conscious processing is either infeasible or too costly, making the quick emotional signal a default path.