Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making

Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making 47
One additional control tactic should be mentioned, which exploits the interaction between decision modes and
uncertainty. As we have noted, different decision making modes pose questions about different issues; thus, the
amount of uncertainty may be affected when the same decision maker views the same decision problem from the
perspective of different modes. A situation that offers high affordance for matching (e.g., by means of well-known
rules for traditional role-based behavior) may be difficult to parse in terms of outcomes and their relative values (i.e.,
choice). Conversely, in other situations it may be easy to identify the most advantageous option (choice) but difficult
to decide if it is ethical (matching). Finding a successful action by experimentation (i.e., reassessment) may be easier
than choice or matching if the situation is novel and actions are reversible; but choice or matching will be easier
when actions are costly and the domain is well understood. These affordances may well influence which mode is
used. For the same reasons, decision makers may find themselves changing modes if uncertainty becomes excessive;
for example, a decision maker may decide to follow the usual practice rather than trust an assumption-laden analysis
of outcomes. Whether this happens depends not only on uncertainty but on dispositions to favor different modes,
which may vary in strength with individual experience, personality, social context, task, domain, and cultural
background. 21
All three modes play a role in determination of the decision making process: Matching primes secondary
questions and a path to commitment, and reassessment fills in when the process includes random search rather than
guidance by questions; the balance of the two determines action uncertainty. Choice helps manage time, the
selection of methods, and to some degree the selection of modes – i.e., the amount of effort that is actually expended
to overcome action uncertainty. Simultaneously, the first-order decision making mode that is supported by these
commitment, simulation with cost of delay curves taken from Figure 6A and uncertainty handling efficiency curves
from Figure 6B, predicts the following: When delay costs and uncertainty handling efficiency are both negatively
accelerated, the prediction is straightforward: uncertainty handling will occur before commitment if and only if its
benefits rise faster than its costs. However, if either delay cost or method efficiency has an S-shaped curve, results
can be problematic. For example, if shorter periods of deliberation are tried first, they may be decremented until they
eventually disappear in favor of immediate commitment, despite potential benefits from longer deliberation; if long
periods of deliberation are tried first, they may be incremented while action is indefinitely delayed, despite benefits
from earlier action. These findings underscore the importance of deliberate exposure to different durations under
these conditions (note 19).
21 The hypothesis that decision makers will tend to avoid the use of modes where uncertainty is high relative to other
modes can be experimentally tested, by presenting scenarios with characteristics like those described in the text, and
assessing the impact on decision mode by criteria described in note 9. Mode-specific uncertainty may interact with
cultural and personal values in their effects on decision mode, as described in note Error! Bookmark not defined..