Evaluation of Choice-Dilemma Alternatives: Utility, Morality and Social Judgement

One hundred non-psychology students completed a questionnaire in which they rated the desirability of the possible outcomes and the morality of the action alternatives for ten (mainly novel) choice-dilemmas. They also indicated their own recommendations and rated the cautious and risky alternatives on (a) C+ scales, defined by a positive term denoting caution and a negative term denoting risk (e.g. careful-foolhardy) and (b) R + scales, defined by a negative term denoting caution and a positive term denoting risk (e.g. cowardly-courageous). The pattern of each subject's recommendations across the ten dilemmas was more closely related to how the subject judged the morality of the action alternatives than to how he rated the desirability of the outcomes. For cautious dilemmas, the judged discrepancy between the cautious and risky alternatives was larger on C+ than R+ scales, but for risky dilemmas, it was larger on R + than C + scales, as predicted from findings in attitudinal judgement. No evidence was found for the notion that risk is generally evaluated more positively than caution. Implications for SEU and value theory interpretations of risk-taking are discussed.