1. What is a possible explanation for the observed preference reversal of voters between choices that are evaluated separately and opportunities that are simultaneously assessed?

Separate decisions encourage emotion to decide the vote. Joint allows for fewer relations to emotion. When people vote as a group, there is less “self” involved, and people think about others instead of themselves. (Bazerman, 2013)  Joint decision making is better than individual decision making. The explanation is the evaluability hypothesis which can be broken into joint and separate evaluations. Bazerman et al. (1998) maintain that this explanation observes a tension existing between what a person wants to do and the person is thinking she or he should be doing. This is in line with the effect of heuristic as explained by Bazerman et al., 2013. The more effectively arousing option instead want an opportunity, will be highly valued in separate evaluations.

On the other hand, the more reasoned and logical option, or rather “should” option will be highly valued in a joint evaluation. In support of this concept of face validity distinction between want and should  Bazerman (2002) illustrates that individuals think of the effectively arousing option as their preferred one while at the same time think of the more logical choice as that they believe or instead wish they should choose. Fundamentally, Bazerman et al., (1998) purport that individuals often act on their current preference when assessing one option at a time.

Preference reversal is a term used to allude to a transition in the relative frequency which favors one option as compared to another during a behavioral experiment.  This principle is applicable during voting since there is an evaluation of two final candidates separately through a voting process. Voters are expected to cast ballot papers with their preferred candidates after which an assessment is conducted to determine the best candidate. This process is performed separately and simultaneously to ensure that accurate results are obtained during the voting process. Therefore, the preferred candidate is elected into office through the majority vote.

2. How do the two selves in the “multiple-selves” theory interact in evaluations of an option that bears short-term gratification and long-term costs?

Typically, when an individual is issued with an option of a short-term reward but having long-term costs, The want “self” is easily swayed to accept the proposal since it makes an immediate evaluation that the options seem to be ideal. When an individual explicitly makes a comparison between the short-term wants or desires against the choice to avoid indulging the “Should” self is activated by the ability to create a comparison and evaluation of the relative value of the current reward as compared to its future costs.

The “want” self wants instant gratification. For example, they are choosing pizza over salad even though salad would be the better option. The “should” self chooses long-term costs such as choosing a car that gets better gas mileage for an everyday commute than a car that does not. Some people have better control over their “wants.” Others do not. (Bazerman, 2013).

3. Describe one proposed approach to dealing with the conflict between the “want” self and the “should” self.

The “want” self is extreme and requires immediate gratification. In case it is left to its own devices, it is likely to act on an instant, natural desires such spending money instead of saving it, or rather preferring to eat junk food instead of foods that are healthy. On the other hand, the should self prefers behaving in a way that maximizes long term best interests such as donating saved money to a good cause instead of spending it merrily, and eating healthy foods as compared to junk foods.

The “multiple selves” allegory resonates with many individuals since most people on various occasions struggle with making choices between two options. One of the options should be chosen since it would be worthy to do so while the other is aimed at satisfying an individual’s physical desires. A very obvious instance of this kind of dilemma is the choice of what one wants to eat for supper: a slice of pizza or a hotdog? In your opinion, what do you think you should choose to eat?  This is an easy task for most individuals. They would instead prefer eating the delicious pizza which is more greasy but have the full knowledge that what they should eat is the healthy salad. This is a typical example of the conflict existing between want and should.

Past researches on decision-making have shown that when a decision will be affected in the future, individuals will tend to weigh the desires of the want self-relative to the wishes of the “should” self. For example, an individual is more likely to accept putting additional money in their savings account only if the money will be withdrawn in the form of a future paycheck as compared to the paycheck in their pocket (Bazerman & Moore, 2008) One approach that is used occurs when entering a grocery store. The produce is in the front, and everything else is in the back. This allows the “should” self to take over and choose healthier food. This is one example that helps with everyday life.

4. What are the reasons for the difference between groups and individuals in the likelihood of escalating commitment and in the degree to which responsibility is heightened?

Escalation of commitment is a pattern in human behavior where a person or a group of people faces adverse outcomes as a result of their action, decision or investments but they continue with the same behavior causing the adverse issues. Impression management, judgmental biases, and perpetual preferences are among the instances of escalations. Unilateral-escalation is differentiated from the competitive escalation paradigm by competitive irrationality. When you are in a group, you are more committed than being an individual — everyone in the groups counts on you including yourself. Individual commitment only requires yourself to rely on you. For example, when working on a group project, the group needs more involvement in hopes to get a better grade.

Escalating commitment theories

Figure 1: Different theories that can be used to escalate commitment

5. How effective are you in managing your “multiple-selves”? What are some strategies that you use to get yourself to focus on the “should” over the “wants”?

When it comes to managing my “multiple-selves,” I  choose to reward myself when I do good. For instance, if I have a salad for lunch, I choose to have a sugary drink with it as an alternative. This allows control over me. Instead of choosing my “should” self all the time, I choose to come up with an ultimatum. When I “want” to drive my car that gets bad gas mileage to work, I always choose what I “should” drive and allow myself to push the other car to work on Fridays. It is a trade-off that I use, and it works.

References

Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: Making decisions with competing for subjective preferences. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 225-241.

Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making.

O’Connor, K. M., De Dreu, C. K., Schroth, H., Barry, B., Lituchy, T. R., & Bazerman, M. H. (2002). What we want to do versus what we think we should do: An empirical investigation of intrapersonal conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(5), 403-418.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?