Colliding sacred values: a psychological theory of least-worst option selection

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
N. Shortland, L. Alison
{"title":"Colliding sacred values: a psychological theory of least-worst option selection","authors":"N. Shortland, L. Alison","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2019.1589572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper focuses on how Soldiers make hard choices between competing options. To understand the psychological processes behind these types of decisions, we present qualitative data collected from Soldiers with combat experience (e.g., in Afghanistan and Iraq). Using a grounded theory approach, we develop a testable and falsifiable theory of least-worst decision-making. Specifically, we argue that the process of choosing a least-worst option centres on an individuals’ ability to select between colliding values. Redundant deliberation describes the process that occurs when two equally “sacred” (non-negotiable) values collide during which, we argue, the decision maker calculates that each outcome is intolerable and cannot choose between them. As such, they fail to act in time (or at all) – resulting in decision inertia. However, in instances of a single (rather than colliding) sacred value, individuals are more readily able to commit to a least-worst choice of action. This theory of “colliding sacred values,” if further validated, offers important theoretical implications for the role of value systems in understanding naturalistic decision-making – specifically with regards to making decisions in extreme conditions of uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2019.1589572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Abstract This paper focuses on how Soldiers make hard choices between competing options. To understand the psychological processes behind these types of decisions, we present qualitative data collected from Soldiers with combat experience (e.g., in Afghanistan and Iraq). Using a grounded theory approach, we develop a testable and falsifiable theory of least-worst decision-making. Specifically, we argue that the process of choosing a least-worst option centres on an individuals’ ability to select between colliding values. Redundant deliberation describes the process that occurs when two equally “sacred” (non-negotiable) values collide during which, we argue, the decision maker calculates that each outcome is intolerable and cannot choose between them. As such, they fail to act in time (or at all) – resulting in decision inertia. However, in instances of a single (rather than colliding) sacred value, individuals are more readily able to commit to a least-worst choice of action. This theory of “colliding sacred values,” if further validated, offers important theoretical implications for the role of value systems in understanding naturalistic decision-making – specifically with regards to making decisions in extreme conditions of uncertainty.
神圣价值的碰撞:最小最坏选择的心理学理论
摘要:本文主要研究士兵如何在竞争选项中做出艰难选择。为了理解这些类型决策背后的心理过程,我们展示了从具有战斗经验的士兵(例如,在阿富汗和伊拉克)收集的定性数据。使用扎根的理论方法,我们开发了一个可测试和可证伪的最小最差决策理论。具体来说,我们认为选择最不坏选项的过程集中在个人在冲突值之间进行选择的能力上。冗余审议描述了当两个同样“神圣”(不可协商)的价值观发生冲突时发生的过程,我们认为,在此过程中,决策者计算出每种结果都是不可容忍的,并且无法在它们之间做出选择。因此,他们不能及时行动(或者根本不行动)——导致决策惯性。然而,在单一(而非冲突)神圣价值的情况下,个体更容易做出最不坏的行动选择。这种“神圣价值碰撞”的理论,如果得到进一步验证,将为价值体系在理解自然主义决策——特别是在极端不确定条件下做出决策——方面的作用提供重要的理论含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信