Dataset Information

Intergroup conflict and rational decision making.

ABSTRACT: The literature has been relatively silent about post-conflict processes. However, understanding the way humans deal with post-conflict situations is a challenge in our societies. With this in mind, we focus the present study on the rationality of cooperative decision making after an intergroup conflict, i.e., the extent to which groups take advantage of post-conflict situations to obtain benefits from collaborating with the other group involved in the conflict. Based on dual-process theories of thinking and affect heuristic, we propose that intergroup conflict hinders the rationality of cooperative decision making. We also hypothesize that this rationality improves when groups are involved in an in-group deliberative discussion. Results of a laboratory experiment support the idea that intergroup conflict -associated with indicators of the activation of negative feelings (negative affect state and heart rate)- has a negative effect on the aforementioned rationality over time and on both group and individual decision making. Although intergroup conflict leads to sub-optimal decision making, rationality improves when groups and individuals subjected to intergroup conflict make decisions after an in-group deliberative discussion. Additionally, the increased rationality of the group decision making after the deliberative discussion is transferred to subsequent individual decision making.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Tur V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4252077 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intergroup conflict and rational decision making.

Martínez-Tur Vicente V Peñarroja Vicente V Serrano Miguel A MA Hidalgo Vanesa V Moliner Carolina C Salvador Alicia A Alacreu-Crespo Adrián A Gracia Esther E Molina Agustín A

PloS one 20141202 12

The literature has been relatively silent about post-conflict processes. However, understanding the way humans deal with post-conflict situations is a challenge in our societies. With this in mind, we focus the present study on the rationality of cooperative decision making after an intergroup conflict, i.e., the extent to which groups take advantage of post-conflict situations to obtain benefits from collaborating with the other group involved in the conflict. Based on dual-process theories of ...[more]

PMID: 25461384

Similar Datasets

Project description:Animal approach-avoidance conflict paradigms have been used extensively to operationalize anxiety, quantify the effects of anxiolytic agents, and probe the neural basis of fear and anxiety. Results from human neuroimaging studies support that a frontal-striatal-amygdala neural circuitry is important for approach-avoidance learning. However, the neural basis of decision-making is much less clear in this context. Thus, we combined a recently developed human approach-avoidance paradigm with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify neural substrates underlying approach-avoidance conflict decision-making. Fifteen healthy adults completed the approach-avoidance conflict (AAC) paradigm during fMRI. Analyses of variance were used to compare conflict to nonconflict (avoid-threat and approach-reward) conditions and to compare level of reward points offered during the decision phase. Trial-by-trial amplitude modulation analyses were used to delineate brain areas underlying decision-making in the context of approach/avoidance behavior. Conflict trials as compared to the nonconflict trials elicited greater activation within bilateral anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, and caudate, as well as right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC). Right caudate and lateral PFC activation was modulated by level of reward offered. Individuals who showed greater caudate activation exhibited less approach behavior. On a trial-by-trial basis, greater right lateral PFC activation related to less approach behavior. Taken together, results suggest that the degree of activation within prefrontal-striatal-insula circuitry determines the degree of approach versus avoidance decision-making. Moreover, the degree of caudate and lateral PFC activation related to individual differences in approach-avoidance decision-making. Therefore, the approach-avoidance conflict paradigm is ideally suited to probe anxiety-related processing differences during approach-avoidance decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundBoth patients and surrogate decision-makers experience decisional conflict when making a major medical treatment decision with life or death implications. The relationship between health literacy and decisional conflict while making a major medical treatment decision is not understood.ObjectiveTo identify the prevalence of individuals making major medical treatment decisions for themselves or someone else and to explore the relationships between decisional conflict and circumstances of the decision as well as the decision-maker.DesignTwo-phase survey study: in phase 1, we screened for who made a major treatment decision; in phase 2, we asked eligible respondents about their experience making the decision.ParticipantsAddress-based random sample of 4000 Wisconsin residents; 1072 completed phase 1 and 464 completed phase 2.Main measuresWe asked respondents about types of decisions made, the most difficult decision made, and characteristics of the decision-maker and the decision. We included the Decisional Conflict Scale and four domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire. Open-ended questions also allowed respondents to describe their experiences.Key resultsAbout 43% of respondents reported making a major medical treatment decision. Decisions about major surgery and life support were regarded as the most difficult decisions. Respondents who made the decision for a spouse/partner (β = 6.65, p = 0.012), parent (β = 9.27, p < 0.001), or someone else (β = 10.7, p < 0.001) had higher decisional conflict. Respondents who reported higher ability to actively engage with healthcare providers (β = - 5.24, p = 0.002) and to understand health information well enough to know what to do (β = - 6.12, p = 0.001) had lower decisional conflict.ConclusionsThe need to make major treatment decisions is likely to increase and making decisions on someone else's behalf appeared to be especially difficult. Improving communication to encourage patient and family engagement in the decision-making conversation, particularly for individuals with limited health literacy, may be helpful.

Dataset Information

Intergroup conflict and rational decision making.

Publications

Intergroup conflict and rational decision making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets