Value conflict and post–decision consolidation

The primary goal of the present study was to investigate how the mental representations of value conflicts are restructured after a decision. A value conflict exists if a chosen alternative is less attractive than a non–chosen alternative on one important attribute when a decision is made. In order to follow up earlier field studies with no experimental control over value conflicts, the present study induced value conflicts in the laboratory. This was done through associating the more attractive of two alternatives with a smaller probability of success. The first hypothesis was that consolidation of value conflict attributes should follow the same pattern when the conflict is controlled experimentally as in earlier studies of real–life decisions. The second hypothesis was that consolidation should be weaker in a non–consequential laboratory study than in the earlier real–life studies. The third hypothesis was that stronger value conflicts (that is, value conflict on more important attributes) lead to greater consolidation effects than weaker value conflicts. The results showed that participants consolidated the value conflicts in the same way as in real–life decisions, with the difference that also less important attributes were consolidated in the present study. However, the consolidation effects were not so strong that they caused advantage reversals on a conflict attribute, as in the earlier field studies with real outcomes and consequences. There was no relationship between strength of conflict and consolidation. The fact that no advantage reversals were registered leads to questions about the ecological validity of laboratory studies of non–consequential decision making.