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 is O’Connor, Lituchy, Barry, Schroth, Dreu, and Bazerman (2002) who 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.

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?

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). Recently conducted researches suggest that there exist naturally arising points in time when individuals are for the most part motivated to follow their long term desires, or simply preferring “should.” Temporal landmarks including personally life events which are relevant such as birthdays and anniversaries, and points of references indicated in the calendars such as public holidays, the beginning of a new week, semester, or year both serves in demarcating the passage of time and also helps individuals in organizing their activities, experiences, and memories (Bazerman& Moore, 2013).

Recently carried out field research shows that temporal landmark magnifies individual’s noble intentions and raises their involvement in “should” behaviors. Analysis done by Dat et al. (2014) on the volume of the daily Google search for the term “diet”, the gym attendance records for the undergraduate students, and a wide range of goals touching on education, finance, health among other issues that those using the internet are committed to pursuing on the website dealing with goal-setting, that is www.sticK.com. Each of the above-listed field studies revealed that individuals involve themselves in “should” behaviors such as goal pursuit, dieting, and exercising are often following temporal landmarks, and at the same time following a federal holiday, birthday celebration, or a break from school. This phenomenon is referred to by authors as the “fresh start effect” (Bazerman& Moore, 2013).

The researches on the “fresh start effect” suggest various techniques that can be leveraged potentially to promote the choices of “should.” For instance, policy makers and managers may consider encouraging decisions which are farsighted following temporal landmarks such as a marriage anniversary, or a birthday, especially those that are viewed as more meaningful psychologically. These may include events such as round-table work anniversary, or a big birthday. Moreover, terming a given day as an important fresh start may raise the possibility of individuals making more decisions that are “should” oriented.

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?

Escalating commitment theories

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

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.

Recent studies show that individual decision makers and decision-making groups will try as much as they can to substantiate a decision with adverse outcomes and yet it is them, or the other group that is responsible for the said decision. This revelation comes about after huger allocations to the failed division by subjects of high responsibility. Moreover, high-responsibility individuals and groups crossed lines with the low-responsibility topics in 1) their view of the two decisions as being somehow related; 2) their dedication to the initial choices; 3) their self-confidence in the second decision; 4) their conviction that supplementary funds would provide them with a turnaround of the situations at hand (Bazerman& Moore, 2008). The above-listed results suggest that high-responsibility subjects had a feeling of greater discord arousal. Therefore, it is reasonable that discord processes trigger an escalation of commitment.

Individuals and groups present themselves in such a way that they appear similarly affected by discord. This suggests some parallelism that exists between the group and the individual commitment escalation. It is wrong to conclude those groups and individuals do not differ in any way entirely. Individuals have tried to suggest that groups or individuals show escalation evidence of commitment and that the process of discord may trigger this procedure in each (Bazerman et al., 1998). In other words, there exist not any other factors that add differentially to the escalation in groups and individuals, or that even the process of discord functioning in the same manner.

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 well. 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.

Even though my brain does give rise to some sense of self that persevere over time, I also believe that I have a different person who shifts continuously in prominence. This is more so when I take a further look at the future, and the future self appears increasingly less similar to my present person. I also believe that most parts of my brain become more active when I think about other individuals and my future self. There is an existence of more overlap in the two activity patterns that could be when I feel about myself today and in the future. This lends support that it individuals should be able to perceive not only their future selves but also that of the others.

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?