Decisions are a common occurrence in everyday life. Why
some make ethical and others make unethical decisions is of interest. Wood, et.
al. (2013) studied the decision-making process of managers and found that
psychological distance and options influenced their ultimate choice. When
proper choices are available, and reflections on courses of action are possible,
better decisions result.
There are pillars that help formulate how
psychological distance is created in people’s minds. These pillars are mental
constructs and decision filters managers use judge course of action. They are
as follows:
1.) Temporal
Distance: Now versus later. Future events are more abstract while current
events are more concrete.
2.) Spatial
Distance: Researchers have shown that faraway locations are abstract while
closer locations are more concrete.
3.) Social
Distance: Us versus them mentality that lowers the perception of impact on
other groups while raising the perception of harm to one’s own. Think of in-group and out-group dynamics.
4.) Hypothetical
Distance: When it appears that an outcome is unlikely it is evaluated more
abstractly than likely outcomes.
The researchers used surveys of managers to
determine their decision-making processes. They found that when faced with a
forced choice those who are more psychologically distant from them often
received the brunt of impact. When the choices are open they often distribute
the impact equally. When they have an option not to choose they often reflect
more on the potential consequences.
The research helps show that people will make poor
decisions that influence the future, are geographically distant, are outside of
their social group, and when it appears that, the outcome is unlikely.
Reflection helps us to consider the potential consequences of choice and how
they impact others. Sometimes to not choose is the best choice someone can
make.
Wood, et. al. (2013). If you can’t see the forest
for the trees, you might just cut down the forest: the perils of forced choice
on “seemingly” unethical decision-making. Journal
of Business Ethics, 118 (3).
