Prospective Stories and Repairs: Pitting Two Novel Approaches Against Compensatory Schemes for Making, Justifying, and Influencing Multi-Attribute Decisions.

Abstract

This paper discusses two additional decision approaches beyond the traditional multi-attribute theory (the “matrix” approach where people weigh the pros and cons of a decision). The prospective story approach involves mentally simulating stories of what life would be like in the future should one take particular options. The prospective option repair approach involves planning specific and concrete actions one can personally take to ameliorate the downsides of particular options.

The two studies described in this paper tested the prevalence, self-persuasion, implementation, other-persuasion, and process costs and benefits of the matrix, repair, and story approaches by pitting the approaches against control (natural or unelaborated) approaches in a two-option decision task and eliciting responses from decision makers and audiences. We also tested for mediation of any effects by certain personal characteristics—subjective numeracy, narrative transportability, and actively open-minded thinking.

Self-reports by decider participants indicated that almost all of them spontaneously used some variant of decision matrices, most used some variant of prospective stories, and almost three-quarters used option repairs. Prospective narratives aided all the different persuasion aspects of decision processes—self-persuasion, justification, and influence—regardless of people’s narrative transportability, though at the cost of longer completion time and less enjoyment compared to other approaches. Prospective option repairs increased deciders’ implementation intentions, generation of new ideas (as self-reported by deciders), and perceived competence by audience participants. The traditional matrix approach, in contrast, aided only self-persuasion, but only for high subjective numeracy deciders. Decider participants tended to be one-sided in their option repairs/stories (they repaired or storied only their eventually-chosen options) although two-sidedness (repairing or storying all options) was more persuasive to audience participants.

The studies validated prospective option repairs and stories as alternative descriptions for people’s decision processes. The decision implementation and persuasion functions of these approaches help explain why many people use these approaches spontaneously, and suggest them as decision aids to would-be decision makers, advisors, and persuaders who do not. The time and effort needed to generate repairs and stories for all options are worthwhile for people concerned about persuasion and choice implementation.