Reactance and Decision Making

Because most decisions are easily made, we make many more decisions than we realize. For example, you decided to read this wherever you are now reading it. You can probably reconstruct the reasons for your decision, but you might have to think about it because the decision was so easy.

For difficult decisions, we have meetings. We debate back and forth. The debates can be long and heated. Sometimes we make the decision and then realize we need to rethink. Difficult decisions can be messy.

Some difficulties arise because the issues are complex, we lack important information, politics is involved, or goodness knows what else. But often, the content of the decision is only part of the problem. Difficulty can also arise from the psychology of deciding.

Here are five factors that can make deciding difficult.

Reactance arises from rejecting options

Psychological reactance is the human response to a loss of behavioral freedom, or to the perception of threats to behavioral freedom. Because choosing one option necessarily implies loss of freedom to choose the other options, making a decision can create reactance. See "Reactance and Micromanagement," Point Lookout for April 11, 2012, for more.

To alleviate reactance, we sometimes avoid deciding, or we do what we can to delay.

Reactance increases when time grows short

When decisions have time limits — even self-imposed limits — we experience reactance because we perceive threats to our freedoms that increase as the time for decision draws near. The freedoms that are threatened include the freedom to choose any of the less-favored options, and the freedom not to choose at all.

As time grows short, things can get tense.

Less-favored options become more attractive

One consequence To alleviate reactance, we
sometimes avoid deciding, or
we do what we can to delayof reactance is a phenomenon called convergence, in which the most favored options become less attractive, while the less-favored options become more attractive. Typically, the effect on the less-favored options is greater, with the effect on the most-favored of the less-favored being greatest.

As we move closer to a decision, the differences between options can blur.

Subversion of the process

As the decision process proceeds, and reactance increases, we sometimes subvert the decision-making process. For example, we might suddenly question preliminary conclusions, such as the early elimination of some options. When this comes about as a consequence of reactance, it's more likely to occur as the field of choices narrows.

Reactance can cause us to "unbutton" preliminary decisions that we thought we had agreed to.

Reactance is enhanced by multiple attractive options

When there are many attractive options, choosing one threatens the freedom to choose the others, which leads to reactance. The most attractive option tends to become less attractive than the second most attractive option.

Inversions like this can occur when there are multiple options.

But there is some good news. Groups that understand the problems created by the psychology of deciding are much less likely to exhibit those problems. Understanding them makes them less difficult.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

For more about psychological reactance, see Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, by Sharon S. Brehm and Jack W. Brehm. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Available from Amazon.

For more articles about reactance, see "Reactance and Micromanagement," Point Lookout for April 11, 2012, and "Cognitive Biases and Influence: II," Point Lookout for July 13, 2016.

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Critical Thinking and Midnight Pizza

When we notice patterns or coincidences, we draw conclusions about things we can't or didn't directly observe. Sometimes the conclusions are right, and sometimes not. When they're not, organizations, careers, and people can suffer. To be right more often, we must master critical thinking.

Mudfights

When we steer the discussion away from issues to attack the credibility, motives, or character of our debate partners, we often resort to a technique known as the ad hominem attack. It's unfair, it's unethical, and it leads to bad, expensive decisions that we'll probably regret.

Red Flags: III

Early signs of troubles in collaborations include toxic conflict, elevated turnover, and antipatterns in communication. But among the very earliest red flags are abuses of power. They're more significant than other red flags because abuses of power can convert any collaboration into a morass of destructive politics.

On Managing Life Event Risk

Life events are those significant personal occurrences that lie outside the context of work. Some life events cause enough stress and demand enough attention that they affect our performance at work. When they do, they can affect our employers' plans.

Six Traps in Email or Text: II

Collaboration requires communication. For many, communicating often takes place in email and text message systems. But much of the effort expended in communication is dedicated to resolving confusions that we created for ourselves. Here are four examples.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info