Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions
AbstractPrevious studies suggest that choices are perceived as difficult as well as negatively emotion-laden when they tap into moral considerations. However, we propose that the involvement of moral issues and values can also facilitate decisions because people often insistently preclude them from trade-offs with other values. Because such values are treated as inviolable and absolute, they are called sacred values (e.g., Tetlock et al., 2000). Two experiments examined the influence of sacred values (measured by a recent self-report scale) and variation of trade-off type (taboo, tragic, routine trade-offs) on perceived decision difficulty and negative emotions. As hypothesized, decision difficulty and negative emotions show diverging patterns as a function of sacred values and trade-off types. When the decision situation involved two conflicting sacred values (i.e., tragic trade-off), people perceived the decision task as emotionally stressful and difficult. However, when the decision situation was associated with only one sacred value (i.e., taboo trade-off), people perceived the task as more negatively emotion-laden, but as easier to solve, compared to a situation not involving sacred values (i.e., routine trade-off). These findings suggest that reliance on sacred values may work as a heuristic.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.
Volume (Year): 3 (2008)
Issue (Month): (January)
Contact details of provider:
Sacred values; protected values; taboo; decision making; decision difficulty; emotion; morality.;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sarah Lichtenstein & Robin Gregory & Julie Irwin, 2007. "What's bad is easy: Taboo values, affect, and cognition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 169-188, June.
- Jeremy Ginges & Scott Atran & Douglas Medin & Khalil Shikaki, 2007. "Sacred bounds on the rational resolution of violent political conflict," Post-Print ijn_00505179, HAL.
- Dhar, Ravi, 1997. " Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 215-31, September.
- Hans-R�diger Pfister & Gisela B�hm, 2008. "The multiplicity of emotions: A framework of emotional functions in decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 5-17, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.