| Decisions can be difficult for many reasons ranging from the quantity of information to be processed to the moral implications of the decisions. Difficult decisions often breed anxiety, leaving the decision maker with a sense of regret and little confidence in her/his decisions. To better understand these phenomena and potential remedies, this dissertation reports three experiments assessing sources of decision difficulty common in multiattribute contexts. The experiments showed that, independent of information processing difficulty, decisions are more difficult when (1) the alternatives are less attractive, (2) attribute levels are ambiguous (more so in gains than in losses), or (3) attribute trade-offs are large. Besides increasing decision difficulty, choices involving unattractive alternatives and ambiguous attribute information also increased the likelihood of post-decision dissonance.; The dissertation also investigates how reference states moderate decision difficulty by changing the apparent attractiveness of the choice alternatives. Experiment 3 showed that positive reference states increase decision difficulty more than negative reference states reduce it. If the goal is to reduce decision difficulty, the results suggest that any negative reference state used would have to be extremely weak to be effective. On the other hand, positive reference states would not have to be so extreme to make decisions difficult. To account for these results, we develop a model that integrates the concept of loss aversion (losses are more unpleasant than equivalent gains are pleasant; Kahneman and Tversky 1979) with the older concept of psychological conflict (e.g., Miller 1944). The model interprets approach-approach, approach-avoidance and avoidance-avoidance conflicts in terms of gains and losses from reference states, and suggests that loss-aversion can account for differences in decision difficulty associated with the different types of conflict. |
