Is Susceptibility to Default Effects Associated with Age?

Older adults are more likely to avoid making decisions than younger adults are. Because the underlying reasons are poorly understood, the present study investigated the potential role of age differences in susceptibility to default effects. Defaults facilitate decision avoidance because decision makers are more likely to passively accept than to actively reject pre-selected default options. A representative lifespan sample (N = 500, Mage = 49.90, SDage = 19.34, 51% female, 67% non-Hispanic White) responded to a pre-registered online study. Participants completed one default effect task comprising two scenarios, one requiring opt-out and one requiring opt-in decisions (i.e., 15 vs. 0 pre-selected features each). Susceptibility to defaults was assessed through the discrepancy between scenarios. In addition, we collected data on known determinants of default effect compliance (i.e., perceived endowment, endorsement, ease, importance of the choice, and experience making similar choices) as well as post-decisional affect. Finally, participants responded to assessments of demographic background, personality, socioemotional and health status, and cognitive ability. Susceptibility to default effects was evident both at the individual and the group level (i.e., across and within scenarios). Unlike hypothesized, older age did not predict greater susceptibility, and older adults were less rather than more likely to endorse determinants of default effect compliance. Of the covariates assessed, only identifying as non-Hispanic White, greater perceived endorsement, and greater perceived ease predicted decision makers’ susceptibility to default effects. Thus, results did not support our assumption that age differences in decision avoidance might reflect age-related increments in the acceptance of decision defaults.

Desire for control and the integrated motivational-volitional model of suicidal behavior: Results from a pilot investigation of adults in the United Kingdom

Background: Suicidal behavior remains a pressing problem in the United Kingdom. Continued theory development is a critical step toward designing effective prevention. Aims: The present study tested a novel element to suicide theory, the Desire for Control, for its direct and moderating roles within the Integrated Motivational-Volitional (IMV) Model of Suicidal Behavior. Method: An online-administered cross-sectional suicide risk survey study ( n = 116) was conducted among adults living in the United Kingdom. Results: Mean suicidal ideation scores were in the non-clinical range. DOC Leadership and Destiny Control were associated with good mental health. DOC Decision Avoidance was associated with poor mental health. DOC Decision Avoidance also acted as a motivational moderator in which the entrapment-suicidal thinking link was worse among those high in decisional avoidance. Conclusion: DOC represents a novel, valuable addition to suicide theory and may inform suicide-specific psychotherapeutic intervention. Additional research is needed to full understand the role of DOC and its factor structures in the IMV.

Hoping for the Worst? A Paradoxical Preference for Bad News

Nine studies investigate when and why people may paradoxically prefer bad news—e.g., hoping for an objectively worse injury or a higher-risk diagnosis over explicitly better alternatives. Using a combination of field surveys and randomized experiments, the research demonstrates that people may hope for relatively worse (versus better) news in an effort to preemptively avoid subjectively difficult decisions (Studies 1–2). This is because when worse news avoids a choice (Study 3A)—e.g., by “forcing one’s hand” or creating one dominant option that circumvents a fraught decision (Study 3B)—it can relieve the decision-maker’s experience of personal responsibility (Study 3C). However, because not all decisions warrant avoidance, not all decisions will elicit a preference for worse news; fewer people hope for worse news when facing subjectively easier (versus harder) choices (Studies 4A¬–B). Finally, this preference for worse news is not without consequence and may create perverse incentives for decision-makers, such as the tendency to forgo opportunities for improvement (Studies 5A–B). The work contributes to the literature on decision avoidance and elucidates another strategy people use to circumvent difficult decisions: a propensity to hope for the worst.

Emotion effects on choice deferral

Purpose Choice deferral (making no choice at all) is a common phenomenon, especially when individuals face a difficult decision. This is further exacerbated in the presence of negative incidental emotions which can have a wide-ranging influence on various aspects of decision-making. Previous research suggests that process (vs outcome) accountability might be more effective at mitigating the effect of irrelevant factors. This paper aims to examine whether accountability attenuates emotion effects on choice and examines the differences in the efficacy of the two accountability types. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses the appraisal tendency framework to propose differences between same valenced emotions on choice deferral and predicts the moderating role of process versus outcome accountability. Two experiments are conducted to test the predictions and the results analyzed using logistic regression. Findings The authors find that outcome and process accountability have different moderating effects on emotion and choice deferral relationship: under outcome accountability, angry individuals are more likely to defer choice while under process accountability, differences in choice across emotion conditions are attenuated. As predicted, differences between anger and fear on the certainty appraisal and thereby information processing, mediate the effects of emotion on choice deferral in the outcome (but not process) condition. Originality/value This research studies the intersection of two developing research streams, affect and accountability, by focusing on specific affective states (anger and fear) and specific accountability types (outcome and process) in the important context of decision avoidance in consumer behavior. Thus, theoretical understanding in both domains is advanced and the benefits of specific accountability types clarified. Key implications for consumers and future research directions are also discussed.

Predicting delay in residents’ decisions on defending v. evacuating through antecedents of decision avoidance

In the event of a wildfire, Australian residents of wildfire-prone areas have a choice to defend their home or evacuate early. However, rather than deciding on and preparing for one of these fire-responses ahead of time, most residents delay deciding on defending v. evacuating (e.g. they wait and see instead). Recent research has shown that delaying this decision is associated with reduced levels of preparedness for both responses and on the day of a fire, an increased risk to life and property. The current study empirically examined what predicts this decision delay regarding one’s fire-response by measuring two personality traits and several decision-related factors. A longitudinal survey study of residents of multiple wildfire-prone areas in Western Australia showed that the strongest predictor of delaying their decision to defend v. evacuate was a lack of difference in perceived values of defending v. evacuating. These findings have important implications for the design of interventions to reduce the risks associated with such delay. For one, agencies could utilise residents’ value base to reduce decision delay. Alternatively, they could focus on the formation of proper contingency plans and stress the necessity to prepare well for both defending and evacuating.