Conviction Narrative Theory: A theory of choice under radical uncertainty

Abstract

Conviction Narrative Theory (CNT) is a theory of choice under radical uncertainty—situations where outcomes cannot be enumerated and probabilities cannot be assigned. Whereas most theories of choice assume that people rely on (potentially biased) probabilistic judgments, such theories cannot account for adaptive decision-making when probabilities cannot be assigned. CNT proposes that people use narratives—structured representations of causal, temporal, analogical, and valence relationships—rather than probabilities, as the currency of thought that unifies our sense-making and decision-making faculties. According to CNT, narratives arise from the interplay between individual cognition and the social environment, with reasoners adopting a narrative that feels ‘right’ to explain the available data; using that narrative to imagine plausible futures; and affectively evaluating those imagined futures to make a choice. Evidence from many areas of the cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences supports this basic model, including lab experiments, interview studies, and econometric analyses. We propose 12 principles to explain how the mental representations (narratives) interact with four inter-related processes (explanation, simulation, affective evaluation, communication), examining the theoretical and empirical basis for each. We conclude by discussing how CNT can provide a common vocabulary for researchers studying everyday choices across areas of the decision sciences.

Emotional cycles and collective action: Global crises and the World Social Forum

“…They are a combination of elements that either attract towards an object or help repel doubts about commitment. These narratives allow them to manage radical uncertainty about the future outcome of their decisions (Chong & Tuckett, 2015;Johnson et al, 2022). These narratives, among other things, consolidate the belief that something exceptional is happening that gives the world a radically different outlook, a different internal logic and different dynamics.…”

Stories in Action

“…Indeed, establishing coherent personal narratives forms the basis of some mental health therapies ( Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999 ). For decades, many psychologists have argued that much if not most of human thinking takes place in narrative form ( Bruner, 1986 ; S. G. B. Johnson et al, 2022 ; Mandler, 1984 ; Sarbin, 1986 ; Schank & Abelson, 1995 ). Some have argued that all thinking takes place narratively, though this is surely wrong ( W. F. Brewer, 2014 ).…”

“…Stories establish expectations about two important characteristics required for interaction. First, they define the interactive context (e.g., the characters are at a restaurant), which enables people to simulate how events will unfold ( S. G. B. Johnson et al, 2022 ). Second, they signal to people their role in that context (e.g., the characters are dining), helping them identify which script or performance to act out ( Bicchieri, 2005 ; Geertz, 1973 ).…”

“…Stories establish expectations about two important characteristics required for interaction. First, they define the interactive context (e.g., the characters are at a restaurant), which enables people to simulate how events will unfold (S. G. B. Johnson et al, 2022).…”

When Do Observers Deprioritize Due Process for the Perpetrator and Prioritize Safety for the Victim in Response to Information-Poor Allegations of Harm?

“…Examples include allegations of psychological harm, “my word against yours” claims, wrongdoings that have occurred in the distant past, and instances in which the parties involved present conflicting narratives about the event (Baumeister et al, 1990). These cases can be described as ambiguous, information poor, or radically uncertain (Inman & Baron, 1996; Johnson et al, 2022). Third parties charged with responding to such allegations (e.g., managers, university administrators) thus face major decision-making challenges because they need to fill in gaps in their knowledge to reduce uncertainty before deciding whether the allegation is credible and actionable (i.e., the alleged perpetrator should be disciplined or punished).…”