This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Taboos and conflicts in decision making: Sacred values, decision difficulty, and emotions

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Martin Hanselmann
Carmen Tanner
Abstract

Previous 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 Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/bb5.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no
File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/bb5/bb5.html
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Article provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.

Volume (Year): 3 (2008)
Issue (Month): (January)
Pages: 51-63
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:3:y:2008:i::p:51-63

Contact details of provider:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Jonathan Baron).

Related research
Keywords: Sacred values protected values taboo decision making decision difficulty emotion morality.

Other versions of this item:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 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. [Downloadable!]
  2. 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. [Downloadable!]
  3. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 215-31, September.
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? RePEc data is maintained by each archive holder on its own website. Nothing is held centrally.

This page was last updated on 2008-12-24.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.