Linking emotions to needs: a comment on Mindsets, rationality and emotion in Multi‐criteria Decision Analysis

First of all, let me express my gratitude to Fred Wenst p for bringing the issue of emotions clearly into the MCDA discussion, and, additionally, to link it with ethics and normativity. Introducing emotion and therefore a high degree of subjectivity into a field where many still strive for objectivity only, is a challenge. Stating that considering emotions is the most important condition for rational decision making is another. In my eyes, Wenst p lives up to both challenges, differently though. I will not so much comment his arguments which I find quite clearly stated, but try to be more precise on the notion of emotions which are still a bit blurry in his paper. Emotions or feelings is used in four different ways in his paper: (1) Biological phenomena (e.g. shivering, blood pressure), (2) individual representations of these phenomena (e.g. fear, anger, happiness), (3) such individual representations of biological phenomena caused by judgements of actions (e.g. pride, shame), or (4) by judgements over options or outcome bundles. This blurriness hinders him from being precise when coming to the conclusion. Without a clear notion of emotions, one cannot clearly indicate how one could consider them in a decision process. Without analysing how emotions relate to the normative force of decisions, one cannot indicate how one should consider them in a decision process. This latter point is a very difficult one, and I will show that Wenst p did not succeed to make it, but that he did not need to make it either. So, this flaw does not do any harm to his central point. In the following, I will develop a notion of emotion which is helpful in the context of decision making, and use the fact that emotions arise when individual needs are satisfied or not satisfied. After dealing with the normative claim of Wenst p’s paper, I will link needs to criteria: Using criteria in a MCDA that are based on needs, and scoring options on their fulfilment of needs, necessarily evokes emotions which will then support the decision process. And, as I agree with the central statement of Wenst p, a joint consideration of emotions and consequences leads to more rational decisions. The challenge for MCDA practitioners will be to reframe traditionally used criteria in a framework of needs, and to include emotions in the evaluation of options in order to reach more coherent results.