LIFE CHOICES MATTERS:
A STUDY ON DECISION MAKING PROCESS AMONG
YOUNG ADULTS
Lulu Farshana M
Decision making process is a
complex set of mental operations that an individual adopt to reach and choose
the best among from the multiple alternatives. Generally it includes identifying
the alternatives, searching for information about the alternatives, evaluating
each of the alternatives by the possible outcomes and making judgements about
the consequences. Various
branches of psychology mostly social and cognitive perspectives have playing
major role in the development of the study of decision making process. The
applicability of the findings are significant, because of the facts of decision
making are cross cutting (Eisenfuhr, 2011). Theories
considering the decision making is mainly based on two categories such as
normative theories and descriptive theories of cognition (Over, 2004). The aim
of normative theories is to covey how people should act when making decisions.
Normative theories, in usual, talk through the principles of comparative
evaluation and choice among multiple alternatives. Theories falls in this
category were consist of formal logic, probability theory etc. While Descriptive
theories, on the other hand, are interested in how people make decisions
(rational or irrational) in practical life. Empirical experiments served as the
foundation for these theories. In recent years, descriptive theories have shown
excel than normative theories in dominance. The distinction between normative
and descriptive theory was found to be more fragmented.
Normative
theories of decision-making focuses on the top-down methods of prescribing
guidelines for how individuals should make decisions. Based on mathematical
studies, human beings calculate the logical or rational aspect of the choices
that will lead to enable the most apt choice (e.g., Byrnes, 2013; Gardener
& Selten, 2001; Shahsavarani & Abadi, 2015; Hickson & Khemka,
2014). In order to make beneficial to maximize the expected utility of
outcomes, normative rules are presented (Hickson & Khemka, 2014). These
rules serve as rational standards to be compared with human actual behaviours. According
to Johnson & Busemeyer (2010), decision-making is reduced to the process of
solving a problem with an eye toward maximizing the expected utility among the
probability distributions of the outcomes of various actions. The transitivity,
cancellation, dominance, and invariance axioms of the normative approach are
shared with the Expected Utility Theory (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944).
From a theoretical standpoint, decision-making entails with transitivity,
cancellation, dominance, and invariance are shared. A list of potential actions
serves as the basis for decision-making in this theoretical perspective
(Fischhof, 2010).
Studies on psychology and
economics giving evidence to agree the eminence of two basic human motivations,
such as the desire to decrease uncertainty and increase the benefits (Bentham,
1970). These days’ human beings also showing emotional interest on the rational
choice (Cabanac, 1992). The prior
studies provides the a significant space for the heuristics strategy (Kahneman
& Tversky,1974) showing that it is the most used cognitive style of
decision making (Galotti,1989).
In particularly, this study inspect the “love”/affective “and the
“work” career aspects, these ought not to fulfil the complete portrayal of human
life. It could be sustained that significant decisions taken in these two life
aspects are common to the life of adult. In base of prior research lights the
arguments. Hazan and Shaver (1990) implemented multiple studies where
participants were surveyed about “love and work” in their lives to assess the
main hypothesis that the two areas were functionally similar to attachment and
exploration in early childhood, and to analyse their complimentary influences
and effects on well-being. Also the affective factors play a pervasive and
predictable role in decision making and satisfaction. A latest review showed
(Lerner et al., 2015) that emotions
are the dominant driver factor of
most meaningful decisions in life
(Loewenstein et al., 2001; Ekman & Yamey, 2004; Oatley et al.,
2006) leading the individual to focus on information congruent with the
emotion, and consequently to a biased
interpretation of the stimulus or the event producing a distortion in risk perception and,
consequently, suboptimal decisions
(Finucane et al., 2000) all life choices are influenced by the context and relationships with others, as
the choices are made within a society
and for this reason, they can influence
both one’s own and others’ lives. Some theories argue that the way we approach
relationships is influenced by how we build relationships during the first few
years of life (Hamarta, 2004). According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973,
1982) individuals themselves develop internal behaviour patterns related to the
relationships they have experienced with a reference figures during infancy,
childhood and adulthood. According to Bowlby (1973), an individual’s initial
attachment is established from the beginning of his development through the
relationship with his primary caregiver, and this provides a cognitive
framework to understand social surrounding and relationships.
The
goal of the current study is to comprehend the cognitive processes involved in
crucial life decisions that the participants themselves have identified. Participants
will be asked to think back on important decisions they have made in their
lives, specifically two categories: sentimental (such as "Should I get
married?" or "Should I break up with my partner?") and
professional (such as "Should I move abroad for Work?" or
"Should I accept that job offer?").It should be noted that although a
decision-process analysis (Abbey & Valsiner, 2005; Fossa et al., 2016) of
life decisions is likely hard to complete (i.e., a step-by-step analysis of
micro-components of decisions would involve gathering data on the life-relevant
decision the moment/period they are taken, and with highly complex
instruments). Hypothesised that Hp1: While making career decisions, people will
typically rely more on rational thoughts and deliberative system, whereas when
making emotional decisions, they will typically rely more on their emotional
and intuitive system.
Method
The
present study is a quantitative analysis of decision making process. The
methodology is adopted from a study conduct in Italy in 2022 (Savioni et
al,2022). The total of 300 young Indian adults were included in the present
study. 150 male participants and 150 female participants were chosen as per the
convenient sampling process. Participants are from an age group of 18 to 30
years old. The majority of them are university level students. All the participants
consented to participate voluntarily and did not receive incentives for their
participation.
Sample
distribution |
|||||
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid
Percent |
Cumulative
Percent |
|
Valid |
1 |
150 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
2 |
150 |
50 |
50 |
50 |
|
Total |
300 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100 |
Procedure
& Materials used
Data
were directly collected from the participants, firstly the researcher given the
overall idea of the aim and purpose of the study. Secondly the description of
the procedures of the study were presented in front of student by providing set
of standardised questionnaires.
After having provided
socio-demographic information, the subjects were asked to think about their own
life (autobiographical memory) and particularly to choose one determined
significant option of choice portraying to life events/ professional aspects
and one to the sentimental area. Specifically, subjects given were by an
imaginary event to think about “an event or a specific
experience of your life in which you had to make an important decision.
In particular, think of an event experienced in your life regarding the
affective sphere (e.g., Should I get married? Now or later? / e.g.,
Should I study or work? Should I move for work?)
Big five Personality questionnaire the big five personality scale is developed by
Costa & McCrae in 1992. The scale is a standardised personality questionnaire to assess
the personality of individuals. This scale is having a total of 44 items and 5
dimensions, scored by five subscales. Namely Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness. The scale is five-point Likert scale (1= strongly agree, 2=
agree, 3= neutral 4=disagree 5= strongly disagree) having positive and reverse
scoring. Reliability coefficient is 0.88 and validity of the scale is 0.7.
Making decision in everyday life scale (Mincemoyer, Perkins and Munaya ,2001) : the
scale is developed in Indian condition which used to measure the decision
making ability of individuals in their daily lives. The test retest coefficient
was found 0.7 for this study.
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988): MSPSS is a self-report questionnaire that explores the perceived social support. The scale is consist of 12 items on a 7-point likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The instrument used to measures support from family, friends, and significant others. The scale showed a high reliability equal to 0.8 the reliability was equal to 0.9.
Data
analysis
Data analysis is done by using SPSS-25 version, there are different statistical analysis were done particularly for understanding the effects of dependent and independent variables in the study. A t-test analysis was done to measure the This analysis is widely used to compare groups’ means for particular variables like the mean scores of gender difference, personality types and decision making(Kim, 2015).Data allows us to compare the characteristics of the participants’ decisional processes. Regression was also used to find out the differences on the basis of variations in the social supports perceived by the individuals and personality traits.
The
study exploring the dependency between personality trait influences, social
support influences in the daily decision making process. Participants were asked to respond on the basis
of their own decisional processes when confronting one specific relevant choice
pertaining to the important and unimportant decisions. Table 1. Shows the decretive
statistics of the present study showing the mean scores and standard deviations
of the decision making, social support and personality.
Table
1. shows the descriptive statistics of decision making, social support and
personality |
|||||
|
N |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
DMTOTAL |
300 |
35.0 |
72.0 |
52.48 |
10.49 |
SSTOTAL |
300 |
30.00 |
70.00 |
51.68 |
9.99 |
PTOTAL |
300 |
35.0 |
68.0 |
50.28 |
8.97 |
Valid N |
300 |
|
|
|
|
The subjects were provided by the options of rational and emotional
in the rating scales and asked by to choose options based on the personal and
professional decisions of daily life.
Table 2. Shows
the difference in scores of decision making between male and female
Gender |
N |
Mean |
Std. Dev |
t-value |
p-value |
Interpretation
|
Male |
150 |
53.40 |
8.34 |
3.14 |
0.0004 |
Significant |
Female |
150 |
65.22 |
11.01 |
|
||||
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted
R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
1 |
.568a |
.323 |
.309 |
6.22848 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), PTOTAL,
PTOTALCONS, PTOTALAGRE, PTOTALEXTRA, PTOTALOPEN, PTOTALES, SSTOTAL |
|
||||||
Model |
Sum of
Squares |
df |
Mean
Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 |
Regression |
5414.971 |
6 |
902.495 |
23.264 |
.000b |
Residual |
11366.615 |
293 |
38.794 |
|
|
|
Total |
16781.587 |
299 |
|
|
|
|
a. Dependent Variable: DMTOTAL |
||||||
b. Predictors: (Constant), PTOTAL,
PTOTALCONS, PTOTALAGRE, PTOTALEXTRA, PTOTALOPEN, PTOTALES, SSTOTAL |
|
||||||
Model |
Unstandardized
Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
B |
Std.
Error |
Beta |
||||
1 |
(Constant) |
12.013 |
3.254 |
|
3.692 |
.000 |
PTOTALEXTRA |
-2.026 |
1.311 |
-.402 |
-1.545 |
.123 |
|
PTOTALCONS |
-1.836 |
1.294 |
-.355 |
-1.418 |
.157 |
|
PTOTALAGRE |
-1.502 |
1.288 |
-.277 |
-1.165 |
.245 |
|
PTOTALES |
-1.886 |
1.291 |
-.406 |
-1.461 |
.145 |
|
PTOTALOPEN |
-1.941 |
1.297 |
-.381 |
-1.497 |
.136 |
|
PTOTAL |
2.921 |
1.280 |
1.531 |
2.282 |
.023 |
|
|
SSTOTAL |
2.613 |
1.234 |
1.412 |
2.013 |
.010 |
a. Dependent Variable: DMTOTAL |
Decision making
is widely explored by different disciplines, while studies are often focused on
abstract concepts and ignoring out its study in the “natural” contexts of life
choices. This study can contribute to this field. Findings of the study shows
that the decision-making process changes in relation to various variables, both
personal (e.g., personality characteristics) and external (e.g. social
support). The idea provided by this study can be a crucial point for future
research on decision making in life choices. In fact, there are several aspects
that can be investigated and that can be open future insights about the
personal social contributions to the cognitive processing. Life-relevant
decision making, needs more active proceeding which involved by the previous
experiences and personal characteristics. The study employed by standardised
questionnaire methods which is widely accepted and allow us to easily
interpretation and reorganization of lifer relevant and daily life choices.
Future research
can inspect further the reasonableness of such a methodology to which is similar
to their research aims. Another limitation is found the questionnaires were not
developed in the Indian context. This could drive some participants to alter
their responses and there is a chance to misinterpretation of the questions.
They will put themselves in a positive aspect of experience cognitive dissonance,
so we cannot rule out that demand characteristics partially influenced subjects
responses. Future research may employ questions formulated in the Indian
context for the better validation. And future research can also focus on a
higher sample size and a balanced demographic details for the better results.
Abbey, E.,
& Valsiner, J. (2005). Emergence of meanings through ambivalence. Forum:
Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1),
1–18.
Akpan, U. I.,
& Ottu, I. F. (2011). Predicting marital satisfaction from the attachment
styles and gender of a culturally and religiously homogeneous population. Gender
and Behaviour, 9(1), 3656–3679.
Baumeister, R.
F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high
self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or
healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1),
1–44.
Beach, L. R.,
& Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in
organizations (2nd ed.).
Beach, & T.
Connolly (Eds.). SAGE publications.
Byrne, K. A.,
Silasi-Mansat, C. D., & Worthy, D. A. (2015). Who chokes under pressure?
The big five personality traits and decision- making under pressure. Personality
and Individual Differences, 74, 22–28
Di Fabio, A.,
& Palazzeschi, L. (2009). Emotional intelligence, personality traits and
career decision difficulties. International Journal for Educational
and Vocational Guidance, 9, 135–146.
Eisenfuhr, F.
(2011). Decision making. Springer
Fortin-Guichard,
D., Laflamme, V., Julien, A. S., Trottier, C., & Grondin S. (2020).
Decision-making and dynamics of eye movements in volleyball experts. Scientific
reports, 10(1), 1–14
Galotti, K. M.
(2017). Cognitive psychology in and out of the laboratory.
Sage
Publications.
Galotti, K. M.,
& Umscheid, V. A. (2019). Students choosing courses: Real-life academic
decision making. The American Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 149–159.
Gati, I.,
Gadassi, R., Saka, N., Hadadi, Y., Ansenberg, N., Friedmann, R., &
Asulin-Peretz, L. (2011). Emotional and personalityrelated aspects of career
decision-making difficulties: Facets of career indecisiveness. Journal of
Career Assessment, 19(1),
3–20.
Guan, Y., Deng,
H., Fan, L., & Zhou, X. (2021). Theorizing personenvironment fit in a changing
career world: Interdisciplinary integration and future directions. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103557
Hirsh, J. B.,
& Peterson, J. B. (2009). Extraversion, neuroticism, and the prisoner’s dilemma. Personality and Individual
Differences, 46(2), 254–256.
Isik, E.
(2013). Perceived social support and locus of control as the predictors of
vocational outcome expectations. Educational Sciences: Theory and
Practice, 13(3), 1426–1430.
John, O. P.,
Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The big five inventory– Versions
4a and 54. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of
Personality and Social Research.
Jones, J. T.,
& Cunningham, J. D. (1996). Attachment styles and other predictors of relationship
satisfaction.