Colliding sacred values: a psychological theory of least-worst option selection

Abstract

This paper focuses on how Soldiers make hard choices between competing options. To understand the psychological processes behind these types of decisions, we present qualitative data collected from Soldiers with combat experience (e.g., in Afghanistan and Iraq). Using a grounded theory approach, we develop a testable and falsifiable theory of least-worst decision-making. Specifically, we argue that the process of choosing a least-worst option centres on an individuals’ ability to select between colliding values. Redundant deliberation describes the process that occurs when two equally “sacred” (non-negotiable) values collide during which, we argue, the decision maker calculates that each outcome is intolerable and cannot choose between them. As such, they fail to act in time (or at all) – resulting in decision inertia. However, in instances of a single (rather than colliding) sacred value, individuals are more readily able to commit to a least-worst choice of action. This theory of “colliding sacred values,” if further validated, offers important theoretical implications for the role of value systems in understanding naturalistic decision-making – specifically with regards to making decisions in extreme conditions of uncertainty.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.