Most of our decisions occur through totally or largely unconscious processes. And, usually, that is of no concern. Whether we decide on vanilla or chocolate ice cream will have no appreciably important effect on our well-being. But, of course, there are other unconsciously determined decisions that literally can have life or death consequences. We might automatically, unreflectively decide to drive to the grocery store after “a couple drinks” because we previously have done so with no adverse consequences.
For important decisions such as those that concern relationships, we often, but not always, consciously deliberate. In those cases, we tend to believe that we are proceeding rationally. But are we?
When deliberate decisions concern interpersonal relationships, regardless of our intention, our mood very often exerts the most powerful influence. This point was driven home by a Joseph P. Forgas study (1989). Subjects were provided a personnel file that included task and interpersonal skills of eight candidates, one of whom to be chosen as a work partner for themselves or for someone else. But before choosing, one third of the subject population was primed into a sad, happy, or neutral state.
Forgas found that sad subjects gave greater weight to candidates’ interpersonal qualities rather than their competencies, and took longer to reach decisions than did subjects in the other mood states. In general, happy subjects made the fastest choices, but only when choosing candidates to work with others. When choosing partners for themselves, they proceeded a little more slowly and carefully.
The Forgas study, then, emphasized the obvious point that mood and personal benefit affects decisions that are consciously deliberated. Notice, though, that speed of choosing also was a most significant influencer. One way to think about this is to contrast the relative decision making value of fund of relevant information versus time taken to decide. Guy E. Hawkins and Andrew Heathcote (2020) framed the issue as evidence-based versus time-based deciding. They did so by employing a Timed Racing Diffusion Model (TRDM) that considered how deadlines – explicit and implicit – impact the accuracy and speed of correct and incorrect decisions.
The esoteric details of TRDM probably would lull you to sleep. So, suffice to say that it is a quantitative unified, comprehensive model of deliberate decision making. Germane to our discussion is what the model purports. In brief, whenever we begin to deliberate, we have personal explicit or implicit expectations for the amount and quality of evidence and time required to decide. Apropos of the model’s title, a race ensues between evidence and time that ends when either evidence or time reaches its boundary. At that point, we feel acute, intense pressure to reach our conclusion, typically sacrificing either ideal evidence or ideal timing. In essence, decisions often come down to being willing to trade some measure of information accuracy for decision speed, or vice versa. Once the accuracy-speed race has ended definitively, the enacted decision depends on the individual’s abilities to encode and execute an appropriate motor response. To summarize, TRDM must include consideration of evidence, time, encoding, and action requirements.
In light of the two aforementioned studies, what can be said succinctly to address the question, “How do we decide?” or, more specifically, “How do we deliberately decide?” The cited authors probably would refer to our current mood, personal involvement, readily accessible relevant information, and time allocation. But I said from the start that most decisions are not consciously deliberated or partially so, at best. I believe that, overwhelmingly, important decisions proceed unconsciously according to our “Baseline ego strength” (BES) — aspects of ourselves and our behavior that are normative for us. We usually operate according to them automatically, unless they, themselves, are revised in an enduring and fundamental manner. There are seven interacting BES elements—history, body, temperament, environment, personality, cognition, and affect. BES history: such as whether you were raised by one or two parents, and whether you were rich or poor. BES body: such as whether you are constitutionally thin or heavy, attractive, or plain. BES temperament: such as whether you are inherently hyper-reactive or hypo-reactive. BES environment (physical and interpersonal): such as whether you grew up in the city or suburbs, have many friends or few. BES personality: such as whether you are naturally extroverted or introverted. BES cognition: such as whether you are more inclined to think abstractly or concretely. And BES affect: such as whether you laugh often or rarely. These enduring BES trait characteristics predispose us toward some features of reality and away from others. They determine most of our automatic, everyday decisions.
You certainly do make some conscious, rational, deliberate choices based upon evidence, time, encoding, and action requirements. But if you hope to reach adaptive decisions in your most critical frequent, routine contexts, you need to understand your BES and how it channels your decisions. I am close to completing a book to facilitate that understanding.
References
Forgas, J. P. (1989). Mood effects on decision making strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049538908260083
Hawkins, G. & Heathcote, A. (2020) Racing against the clock: Evidence-based versus time-based decisions. Psychological Review, Feb 18, No Pagination Specified https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000259
No comments:
Post a Comment