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

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.

Social comfort zones for transformative conservation decisions in a changing climate

“…The logic of protected values is equally prevalent among conservation scientists who see such interventions as a slippery slope, as dangerously transgressing historical baselines, or involving outcomes that are poorly understood (Hagerman & Satterfield, 2013). Trading protected values off for economic or other outcomes is thus considered non‐negotiable (Hanselmann & Tanner, 2008; Sacchi et al., 2014; Visschers & Siegrist, 2014), even where arguments for multiple benefits can be identified (Baron & Spranca, 1997; Daw et al., 2015). Thus, the already strong value positions associated with biodiversity or avoidance of manipulating nature closes the door on many difficult but necessary conversations.…”

Uniform pricing effect: The influence of uniform pricing on product value judgement and purchase intention

“…Except the price setting, all the other settings of the scenarios described in the two conditions were the same as that in Pilot Study. Having browsed the product descriptions and the corresponding price information, participants were asked to report their purchase intentions (‘How likely are you to buy products from this store?’, ‘To what extent are you interested in shopping at this store?’; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Cronbach' α = 0.85) (Aaker et al, 2010), their product value judgements (‘To what extent do you think that it is valuable to buy things in such a store?’, ‘To what extent do you feel that you are getting value for money when you buy goods from the store at the above price?’, ‘To what extent do you think the goods in this store are good value for money’, ‘To what extent do you feel good if you buy the goods in the store at the above price?’, ‘To what extent would you feel pleasant if you bought the goods in the store at the above price?’, ‘To what extent would you feel joyful if you bought the goods in the store at the above price?’; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Cronbach' α = 0.93) (Cai et al, 2016), their promotion perception (‘To what extent do you think the store is carrying out promotional activities?’ 1 = not at all, 7 = very much) (Krishna et al, 1991), their store price image perception (‘How do you feel about the prices of the products in this store compared to other stores?’; 1 = much lower, 7 = much high) (Falk et al, 2016), their price fairness perception (‘To what extent do you feel that the prices in this store are reasonable?’, ‘To what extent do you feel that the prices in this store are fair?’; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Cronbach' α = 0.86) (Graciola et al, 2018), their decision difficulty (‘Do you find it difficult to make a purchase decision at this store?’; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much) (Hanselmann & Tanner, 2008), their concession perception (‘To what extent do you think the shop is profiting consumers?’ 1 = not at all, 7 = definitely) (Darke & Chung, 2005), and their product involvement (‘It is very important for you to purchase the items shown in the above scenario’; 1 = very disagree, 7 = very agree) (Zaichkowsky, 1994). Finally, they were asked to report their demographic characteristics.…”

“…In addition, in the uniform pricing condition, participants could make decisions without much price comparison, which could reduce the difficulty of purchase decisions (Hanselmann & Tanner, 2008). And the uniform pricing of all products may also affect consumers' perception of price fairness (Graciola et al, 2018).…”

“…In addition, in the uniform pricing condition, participants could make decisions without much price comparison, which could reduce the difficulty of purchase decisions (Hanselmann & Tanner, 2008).…”

“…'; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much; Cronbach' α = 0.86)(Graciola et al, 2018), their decision difficulty ('Do you find it difficult to make a purchase decision at this store? '; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much)(Hanselmann & Tanner, 2008), their concession perception ('To what extent do you think the shop is profiting consumers?' 1 = not at all, 7 = definitely)(Darke & Chung, 2005), and their product involvement ('It is very important for you to purchase the items shown in the above scenario'; 1 = very disagree, 7 = very agree)…”