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.

摘要

本文重点讨论士兵如何在竞争性选择之间做出艰难的选择。为了了解这些类型决策背后的心理过程，我们提供了从具有战斗经验的士兵那里收集的定性数据（例如在阿富汗和伊拉克）。使用扎根的理论方法，我们开发了最坏决策的可验证且可证伪的理论。具体来说，我们认为选择最差选择权的过程取决于个人在冲突值之间进行选择的能力。冗余协商描述了两个相等的“神圣”（不可协商）值发生冲突时发生的过程，我们认为，在此过程中，决策者计算出每个结果都是无法忍受的，无法在它们之间进行选择。因此，他们无法及时（或根本无法）采取行动-导致决策惯性。然而，在单一（而不是冲突）的神圣价值的情况下，个人更容易做出最差的选择。这种“碰撞神圣价值”的理论，如果得到进一步证实，将为价值体系在理解自然主义决策中的作用提供重要的理论启示，尤其是在极端不确定性条件下进行决策方面。