The development and testing of a nonconsequentialist decision‐making model

The purpose of this research is to show that new conceptual work in the judgment and decision‐making research arena has suggested a nonconsequentialist perspective to decision‐making. The current study successfully tested and found support for a decision‐making model, which serves an alternative to expected utility theory.

Using a natural decision‐making setting, 578 participants completed a one time study using questionnaires attempting to test a nonconsequentialist decision‐making model, which includes indecisiveness as a vital construct.

Full mediation was found for the Nonconsequentialist Decision‐Making Model (NDMM), allowing us to discuss directionality and causality. Further, 81 percent of the 578 participants felt indecisive about their personal decision, highlighting the importance of examining this understudied construct. Research limitations/implications – The current study suggests that individuals facing a difficult decision would soon rather make a detrimental decision than stay in the decision‐making process. This means that the actual act of making a decision functions as a coping behavior in and of itself.

Understanding the decision‐making process is complex, and many individual and environmental variables play critical roles that lead the decision maker to a particular choice. Traditionally, the judgment and decision‐making literature has interpreted decision‐making as rational or irrational, with an attempt to understand and negate common flaws in logic. However, this study supports a nonconsequentialist perspective, suggesting that emotions play a significant role in the decision‐making process. By such an inclusion we can move beyond the sole focus of rational‐irrational and move toward a consequentialist‐nonconsequentialist paradigm in decision‐making. By making this shift, we are better able to deal with and understand individual emotions during the decision‐making process, and ultimately help individuals functionally cope and stay in the process, rather than escape and make a poorly thought through decision. This work is especially critical in the upper echelons of organizations, where nonconsequentialist dysfunctional decisions can affect millions of lives and cost billions of dollars.

Nonconsequentialist dysfunctional decisional coping behavior is a recently developed topic with significant conceptual work but insufficient empirical evidence. Loewenstein et al. (2001, p. 267) note that: “Virtually all current theories in decision‐making under risk or uncertainty are cognitive and consequentialist”. If Loewenstein et al.'s (2001) quote is accurate, then the current study offers empirical support for an alternative, nonconsequentialist model.