4.6 Article

Regulating Emotions during Difficult Multiattribute Decision Making: The Role of Pre-Decisional Coherence Shifting

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150873

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Michigan Rackham research grant
  2. University of Michigan Thurnau Professorship Award

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Almost all real-life decisions entail attribute conflict; every serious choice alternative is better than its competitors on some attribute dimensions but worse on others. In pre-decisional coherence shifting, the decision maker gradually softens that conflict psychologically to the point where one alternative is seen as dominant over its competitors, or nearly so. Specifically, weaknesses of the eventually chosen alternative come to be perceived as less severe and less important while its strengths seem more desirable and significant. The research described here demonstrates that difficult multiattribute decision problems are aversive and that pre-decisional coherence shifting aids individuals in regulating that emotional discomfort. Across three studies, attribute conflict was confirmed to be aversive (Study 1), and skin conductance responses and ratings of decision difficulty both decreased in participants who coherence shifted (Study 2). Coherence shifting was also diminished among decision makers who were depleted of regulatory resources, known to be required for common emotion regulation mechanisms. Further, coherence shifting was shown to be relatively common among people who reported strong suppression tendencies in everyday emotion regulation (Study 3). Overall, the data suggest that, at least in part, coherence shifting serves as a tool that helps decision makers manage the pre-decisional discomfort generated by attribute conflict. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available