INÊS VALENTE ROSA (*)
MARC SCHOLTEN (**)
JOANA PAIXÃO CARRILHO (***)
RESUMO
É consensual na literatura que o nível de conflito sentido numa tomada de decisão influencia o modo como nós escolhemos e que este grau de conflito depende do tamanho de troca entre os atributos das opções do conjunto de escolha. Modelos tradicionais defendem que o conflito aumenta com o tamanho de troca, uma vez que são maiores as vantagens que temos de abdicar ao escolher uma opção em detrimento de outra (sacrifícios). No entanto, uma outra perspectiva é que o conflito depende dos argumentos à nossa disposição para escolher uma das opções: quanto menor for o tamanho de troca, mais fracos os argumentos e consequentemente maior o nível de conflito sentido na tomada da decisão.
]]> O presente artigo demonstra como um modelo unificado de formação do conflito na tomada de decisão, o modelo de dupla mediação, concilia as diferentes perspectivas de forma integradora. A relação entre tamanho de troca e conflito é mediada pelos sacrifícios e pelos argumentos (em direcções opostas) e moderada por diversos factores, entre os quais a importância relativa dos atributos e a necessidade de justificar a escolha a outros.Palavras-chave: Tomada de decisão, troca, conflito.
ABSTRACT
There is consensus in the literature that the level of conflict experienced in making a decision influences the way in which we choose and that this degree of conflict depends on the size of the tradeoff between the attributes of the options in the choice set. Traditional models argue that conflict increases with tradeoff size, because of the greater advantages that we have to forego in choosing one option instead of the other (sacrifices). However, another perspective is that the conflict depends on the arguments at our disposal to choose one of the options: The smaller the tradeoff, the weaker the arguments and consequently the higher the level of conflict in making the decision.
This article shows how a unified model of conflict formation in decision making, the double-mediation model, reconciles both perspectives. The relation between tradeoff size and conflict is mediated by sacrifices and arguments (in opposite directions) and moderated by several factors, among which the relative importance of the attributes and the need to justify the decision to others.
Key words: Decision making, tradeoff, conflict.
]]> Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.
Full text only available in PDF format.
REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
Brown, C. L., & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 372-385. [ Links ]
Carrilho, J. P., Scholten, M., & Rosa, I. V. (2005). As Duas Caras de Janus: O Conflito Como Fonte de (Im)previsibilidade na Tomada de Decisão. Análise Psicológica, presente edição.
Chatterjee, S., & Heath, T. B. (1996). Conflict and Loss Aversion in Multiattribute Choice: The Effects of Trade-off Size and Reference Dependence on Decision Difficulty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 144-155.
Chernev, A. (2001). The Impact of Common Features on Consumer Preferences: A Case of Confirmatory Reasoning. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 475-488.
Correia, T. R. (2003). Dissimilaridade das Opções e o Conflito na Escolha (II): Um Modelo de Mediação Dupla. Monografia de Licenciatura em Psicologia Social, Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada.
]]> Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 215-231.Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgment and Choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53-88.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fischer, G. W., Jia, J., & Luce, M. F. (2000a). Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: The RandMAU model. Management Science, 46, 669-684.
Fischer, G. W., Luce, M. F., & Jia, J. (2000b). Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error. Management Science, 46, 88-103.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Bridging Individual, Interpersonal, and Institutional Approaches to Judgment and Decision Making: The Impact of Accountability on Cognitive Bias. In S. L. Schneider, & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 431-457). Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 409-433.
McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers of econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York, NY: Academic Press.
]]> Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. In P. C. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes (pp. 343-369). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Rosa, I. V. (2004). Dupla Mediação do Conflito na Tomada de Decisão: O Papel Moderador da Justificação da Decisão (I). Monografia de Licenciatura em Psicologia Social, Lisboa: Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada.
Scholten, M. (2002). Conflict-Mediated Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 683-718.
Scholten, M., & Sherman, S. J. (2004). Tradeoffs, Conflict, and Choice: The Double-Mediation Model. Technical Report #254 of the Cognitive Science Program at Indiana University. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Available: http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/publications/index.html#techreps.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). On Subjectively Optimum Selection Among Multiattribute Alternatives. In M. W. Shelley II, & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human Judgments and Optimality (pp. 257-281). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The Effect of Accountability on Susceptibility to Decision Errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 417-446.
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., & O’Curry, S. (1994). Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice. Marketing Science, 13, 23-40.
Styron, W. (1979). Sophie’s Choice. New York, NY: Random House.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and Complexity of Thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
]]> Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The Neglected Social Context of Judgment and Choice. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 7, 297-332.Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination By Aspects: A Theory of Choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-Dependent Preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.
(*) Psicóloga. E-Mail: inesrosa@sapo.pt.
(**) Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa. E-Mail: scholten@ispa.pt.
(***) Universidade Lusíada, Lisboa. E-Mail: joana carrilho@netcabo.pt.
]]>