CHOICE UNDER CONFLICT: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision

Choice often produces conflict. This notion, however, plays no role in classical decision theory, in which each alternative is assigned a value, and the decision maker selects from every choice set the option with the highest value. We contrast this principle of value maximization with the hypothesis that the option to delay choice or seek new alternatives is more likely to be selected when conflict is high than when it is low. This hypothesis is supported by several studies showing that the tendency to defer decision, search for new alternatives, or choose the default option can be increased when the offered set is enlarged or improved, contrary to the principle of value maximization. The experience of conflict is the price one pays for the freedom to choose. Conflict arises because a person does not always know how to trade off costs against benefits, risk against value, and immediate satisfaction against future discomfort. As a consequence, it is often difficult to make important decisions, such as family planning, as well as insignificant decisions, such as what clothes to pack for a weekend trip. The resolution of conflict is complicated by the presence of uncertainty about the consequences of one's actions, and it is further hindered by the anticipation of dissonance and regret. Conflict plays no role in the rational theory of choice. In this theory, each option x has a value v(jc) such that, given an offered set, the decision maker selects the option with the highest value. This principle of value maximization underlies the standard analysis of decision making under uncertainty and the classical theory of riskless choice, which are widely used in economics, political theory, and management science. The rational theory of choice does not deny the existence of conflict; it merely assumes that conflict has no direct bearing on decision. In contrast, we argue that the presence of conflict not only influences the psychological state of the decision maker, but can also affect the actual choice. When one option is better than another in all essential respects, there is no conflict and choice is easy. However, when each option has significant advantages and disadvantages, people often experience conflict that makes choice aversive and compels them to delay decision and seek additional information or options. Thus, people are more likely to defer choice when conflict is high than when it is low. As will be shown below, this hypothesis is inconsistent with value