An official website of the United States government
Objective In this study, we extend the impact of mindfulness to the concept of least-worst decision-making. Least-worst decisions involve high-uncertainty and require the individual to choose between a number of potentially negative courses of action. Research is increasingly exploring least-worst decisions, and real-world events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) show the need for individuals to overcome uncertainty and commit to a least-worst course of action. From sports to business, researchers are increasingly showing that “being mindful” has a range of positive performance-related benefits. We hypothesized that mindfulness would improve least-worst decision-making because it would increase self-reflection and value identification. However, we also hypothesized that trait maximization (the tendency to attempt to choose the “best” course of action) would negatively interact with mindfulness. Methods Three hundred and ninety-eight participants were recruited using Amazon MTurk and exposed to a brief mindfulness intervention or a control intervention (listening to an audiobook). After this intervention, participants completed the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responders (LUCIFER). Results As hypothesized, mindfulness increased decision-making speed and approach-tendencies. Conversely, for high-maximizers, increased mindfulness caused a slowing of the decision-making process and led to more avoidant choices. Conclusions This study shows the potential positive and negative consequences of mindfulness for least-worst decision-making, emphasizing the critical importance of individual differences when considering both the effect of mindfulness and interventions aimed at improving decision-making.
more »
« less
Avoidant authority: The effect of organizational power on decision-making in high-uncertainty situations
Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between “in the lab” and “in the field” when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1945108
- PAR ID:
- 10402292
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Volume:
- 13
- ISSN:
- 1664-1078
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Emerging theories suggest that interpersonal power may moderate partner regulation of attachment-related defenses. This study tested whether partner negative engagement (attack, blame, and criticism) and process power (direction and control of conflict resolution) interacted to predict avoidant and anxious targets’ behavioral and physiological responses to conflict. We expected the greatest dysregulation when avoidant targets’ autonomy concerns were maximally threatened (i.e., when partners directed conflict using highly negative tactics) and when anxious targets’ abandonment concerns were maximally threatened (i.e., when highly negative partners disengaged from conflict). Results indicated that highly anxious people recovered poorly from conflict regardless of partner negative engagement and process power but showed greatest heart rate reactivity (HRR) to conflict when partners used strong negative engagement but did not direct conflict. Highly avoidant individuals’ HRR did not differ based on partner negative engagement or process power. As expected, however, they recovered the worst from conflict when highly negative partners directed conflict discussions and recovered best when partners directed conflict without using blame or criticism. Findings suggest that the meaning and consequences of process power may differ for avoidant versus anxious targets and underscore the need to integrate multiple conceptualizations of interpersonal power into future research on partner regulation.more » « less
-
When people receive advice while making difficult decisions, they often make better decisions in the moment and also increase their knowledge in the process. However, such incidental learning can only occur when people cognitively engage with the information they receive and process this information thoughtfully. How do people process the information and advice they receive from AI, and do they engage with it deeply enough to enable learning? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments in which individuals were asked to make nutritional decisions and received simulated AI recommendations and explanations. In the first experiment, we found that when people were presented with both a recommendation and an explanation before making their choice, they made better decisions than they did when they received no such help, but they did not learn. In the second experiment, participants first made their own choice, and only then saw a recommendation and an explanation from AI; this condition also resulted in improved decisions, but no learning. However, in our third experiment, participants were presented with just an AI explanation but no recommendation and had to arrive at their own decision. This condition led to both more accurate decisions and learning gains. We hypothesize that learning gains in this condition were due to deeper engagement with explanations needed to arrive at the decisions. This work provides some of the most direct evidence to date that it may not be sufficient to provide people with AI-generated recommendations and explanations to ensure that people engage carefully with the AI-provided information. This work also presents one technique that enables incidental learning and, by implication, can help people process AI recommendations and explanations more carefully.more » « less
-
Viale, R. (Ed.)Alternative-based approaches to decision making generate overall values for each option in a choice set by processing information within options before comparing options to arrive at a decision. By contrast, attribute-based approaches compare attributes (such as monetary cost and time delay to receipt of a reward) across options and use these attribute comparisons to make a decision. Because they compare attributes, they may not use all available information to make a choice, which categorizes many of them as heuristics. Attribute-based models can better predict choice compared to alternative-based models in some situations (e.g., when there are many options in the choice set, when calculating an overall value for an option is too cognitively taxing). Process data comparing alternative-based and attribute-based processing obtained from eye-tracking and mouse-tracking technology support these findings. Data on attribute-based models thus align with the notion of bounded rationality that people make use of heuristics to make good decisions when under time pressure, informational constraints, and computational constraints. Further study of attribute-based models and processing would enhance our understanding of how individuals process information and make decisions.more » « less
-
Nooripour, Roghieh (Ed.)School choice initiatives–which empower parents to choose which schools their children attend–are built on the assumptions that parents know what features of a school are most important to their family and that they are capable of focusing on the most important features when they make their decisions. However, decades of psychological research suggest that decision makers lack metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their decisions. We sought to reconcile this discrepancy between the policy assumptions and the psychological research. To do so, we asked participants to complete Choice-Based Conjoint surveys in which they made series of choices between different hypothetical schools. We then asked participants to self-report the weight they placed on each attribute when making their choices. Across four studies, we found that participants did not know how much weight they had placed on various school attributes. Average correlations between stated and revealed weights ranged fromr= .34–.54. Stated weights predicted different choices than revealed weights in 16.41–20.63% of decisions. These metacognitive limitations persisted regardless of whether the participants were parents or non-parents (Study 1a/1b), the nature of the attributes that participants used to evaluate alternatives (Study 2), and whether or not decision makers had access to school ratings that could be used as metacognitive aids (Study 3). In line with prior psychological research–and in contract to policy assumptions–these findings demonstrate that decision makers do not have particularly strong metacognitive knowledge of the factors that influence their school choice decisions. As a result, parents making school choice decisions are likely to seek out and use the wrong information, thus leading to suboptimal school choices. Future research should replicate these results in more ecologically valid samples and test new approaches to school choice that account for these metacognitive limitations.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1027108
