Arlette S. Bär
Cognitive styles and emotional processes in decision behaviour
Authors
Arlette S. Bär (University of Fribourg)
Andrea C. Samson (University of Fribourg)
Systemizing is the drive to analyze the variables in a system, to derive the underlying rules that govern the behaviour of a system, as well as the drive to construct systems. Empathizing is the drive to identify mental states and respond to these with an appropriate emotion. As a previous study showed, empathizing and systemizing are two cognitive styles which evoke differences in risky decision behaviour investigated by means of the Active Information Search method. In this study, the decision process and the involved emotional processes of high empathizer and high systemizer is investigated in more detail by using the Thinking Aloud method. The subjects were selected by the means of short German versions of the EQ and SQ. Three quasi-realistic decision tasks were presented to the subjects. The utterances were analyzed by means of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC). The results demonstrate that high empathizer give more emotional or affective comments, whereas high systemizer describe their decision process more systematically and adequately. The analysis of emotional facial expressions by means of the Facial Action Coding System reveals differences in empathizers and systemizers.
|
|
|
Céline Eggen
Risky decision making in patients with ventromedial prefrontal lesions
Authors
Céline Eggen (University of Berne)
Klemens Gutbrod (Inselspital Bern)
Walter Perrig (University of Berne)
Oswald Huber (University of Fribourg)
Arlette S. Bär (University of Fribourg)
Odilo W. Huber (University of Fribourg)
Damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is usually associated with deficient decision making. Most experimental results in this field have been obtained with lotteries and gambling tasks. These, however, do not take into account the possibility of active risk-control as observed in many experiments with quasi-naturalistic scenarios as well as in real decisions. In our study, 26 subjects (13 brain-injured patients either with ventromedial or dorsolateral prefrontal lesions, 13 healthy controls) worked on two quasi-naturalistic risky decision tasks. In each scenario participants had to choose between a risky and a safe alternative. After the presentation of the task, subjects could ask questions and received matching standardised answers, allowing us to measure what kind of information decision makers are actively interested in. The goal of the experiment is to investigate if prefrontal brain-injured patients are less able to anticipate consequences and less able to cope with risk by inventing actions that defuse the risk. Data analysis is in progress.
|
|
|
Odilo W. Huber
Sensation seeking and risk related information search in quasi-naturalistic risky scenarios
Authors
Odilo W. Huber (University of Fribourg)
The paper presents an experiment that investigates the role of sensation seeking and impulsivity for the process of risky decision making. Whereas early measures of sensation seeking measured the impulsivity and cognitive component together, recent instruments present separate scales (Ruch und Zuckermann, 2001). In the experiment, subjects decided in two quasi-naturalistic scenarios with one safe and one risky alternative each. Information search was measured by means of the method of active information search: subjects initially get a scarce description of the decision situation and the alternatives. Subsequently, they ask questions and receive matching standardized answers. We predict that subjects with high sensation seeking scores (measured with the scale of Ruch und Zuckermann, 2001) search more information for the risky alternatives, and are more interested in risk defusing. The results confirmed the hypotheses.
|
|
|
Martin Hanselmann
Moral Decision Making: Influence of Sacred Values on Decision Difficulty and Negative Emotions
Authors
Martin Hanselmann (University of Zurich)
Carmen Tanner (University of Zurich)
Previous studies suggest that choices are perceived as difficult as well as negatively emotion-laden when they tap on moral considerations. However, we suppose that involvement of moral issues and values can also facilitate decisions since 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., Tanner & Medin, 2004; Tetlock et al., 2000). In a series of experiments, we examined the influence of sacred values (measured by separate items) and various trade-off types (taboo, tragic, routine trade-offs) on perceived decision difficulty and negative emotions. Participants were provided with several decision scenarios which refer to recently debated ethical topics. Decision difficulty and negative emotions were assessed through two sets of items. As hypothesized, our results show diverging patterns depending on whether choices were associated with one or more sacred values. Compared to choices without reference to sacred values (routine trade-off), decisions associated with sacred values elicit negative emotions, but are simultaneously perceived as easy and straightforward, when just one sacred value is involved (taboo trade-off). However, in case of two conflicting sacred values (tragic trade-off), both decision difficulty and negative emotions converge on a high level. Findings suggest that reliance on sacred values may work as a form of heuristic or choice rule.
|
|
|
Bettina Ryf
Moral Issues in Group Decision Making: The Impact of Sacred Values on Negotiations
Authors
Bettina Ryf (University of Zurich)
Carmen Tanner (University of Zurich)
Negotiations are essential in business and everyday life. A central feature of negotiations is the conflict issue. Negotiation research tends to focus on interests and neglects values. Conflicts of interests are open for tradeoffs and concession-making and can thus be solved by integrative tradeoffs. Value conflicts, however, are more difficult to resolve. We aim to study the influence of sacred values on negotiations (Tanner & Medin, 2004; Tetlock et al., 2000). Sacred values are seen as absolute and protected from tradeoffs because they tap into moral principles. Hence, they are likely to provide a problem for negotiations, since they are by definition neither exchangeable nor negotiable. In three small-group laboratory experiments, participants were involved in multiple issue-negotiation tasks (e.g., in one scenario, people had to negotiate about how to provide the facilities for a winter sport resort which is nominated for the Olympic Games). People with and without sacred values were compared in terms of concession-making and negotiation outcomes. As expected, results revealed that people holding sacred values were hard bargainers rarely making concessions concerning the specific issue. However, we found no support for the common view that involvement of sacred values lead to poor conflict management. In contrast, people holding sacred values were more likely to show integrative behavior and to achieve better outcomes than people without sacred values.
|