This article was published in Etc: A Review of General Semantics, 75 (January and April 2018), pp. 76-83.
Universals of Choice
Joseph A. DeVito*
Universals
are qualities or characteristics of a process or concept that are present in
all instances. For example, if we consider the universals of language, we’d
find that all languages have nouns and pronouns, all languages have a deep and
surface structure, and all languages have vowels and consonants (Greenberg, 1963).
A universal of choice, the subject of this paper, then, is a characteristic
that is present in all choice-making acts.
Along with many of the social sciences,
communication is (and has been for at least the last 30 years) focused on
identifying differences (mainly cultural and gender differences) and explaining
how these differences influence communication and therefore why these differences
need to be identified and incorporated into any theory of effective
communication. In contrast, the search-for-universals approach focuses on
identifying characteristics that any type of communication act has in common
with all other instances of this type of communication.
Here we focus on choice making but it could be listening,
nonverbal communication, small talk, public speaking, or any topic or subtopic
of any field. The topic can be broad
(for example, interpersonal communication or General Semantics) or narrower
(for example, making an apology or abstracting). The area to be explored and
the specific purposes of the endeavor would determine the breadth of the
specific topic chosen.
Choice making is important to study simply because it’s an
inevitable part of life. You cannot
live without making choices (Iyengar, 2011; DeVito, 2016b). Even when you
refuse to make a choice, you’re act of refusal is itself a choice. Similarly,
when you delay making a choice, you’re making a choice to delay the other
choice. Even Hobson’s choice—often viewed as no choice—involves choice. The
story—perhaps true, perhaps not—is that Thomas Hobson ran a horse rental stable
and insisted that the renter take the next horse in line—seemingly providing no
choice. But, of course, there was a choice—not among horses but between the
next horse in line or no horse—a classic case of “take it or leave it”. And, universals are important to identify
simply because they are part of the description of a process or concept under
study and thus add to our knowledge and understanding of the subject. That
practical applications and skills can be derived from this study is an added
bonus.
These two general approaches—the search for differences and
the search for universals--complement each other. Each provides needed insight and
helps pave the way for developing principles and skills for more effective communication
or choice making.
Universals are discovered inductively,
from examining choice behavior. But since not all choices have been examined
and there are many in the future that can’t be examined, perhaps it’s best to
view “universals” as hypotheses to be examined.
Universals describe what is rather than
what should be or could be. They are descriptions for understanding the nature
of choice making rather than prescriptions for making better choices.
With the help of the insights from a
variety of choice and decision-making theorists (Iyengar, 2011; Schwartz, 2004;
Heath & Heath, 2013), here then is an initial and very preliminary attempt
to identify some of the universals of choice making.
Choices are future predictions,
guesses, hypotheses.
When you make a choice, it’s like placing a bet—you bet that the choice you’re
making will prove to be a good one, the best one actually. Because choices are
predictions, you can never be certain how they will turn out. The advantage of
going through a rigorous analysis of the pros and cons of the available choices
is that your predictions are more likely to come true and that’s essentially
what you want when making a choice (Heath & Heath, 2013; Schwartz, 2004).
Choices involve the acceptance of
negatives and the rejection of positives—as well as the acceptance of positives and the rejection of
negatives. Let’s say you’re making a choice between Alpha and Beta. If your evaluation is a fair one and if Alpha
and Beta are truly competitive as indicated by your initial indecision, then
they each have positive qualities and they each have negative qualities. If you
select Alpha, you get its positive qualities but also its negative ones and of
course, in your rejection of Beta, you are not getting its positive qualities.
Choices are unique. Each choice is different from every
other choice; it is made in a specific context of time and place and that time
and place are in a constant state of flux. So, even in “repeating” the choice
at a later time, it’s different because the time and place have changed and of
course the choice maker has changed—in great part from making the choice in the
first place.
Choices are prone to bias. There are a variety of biases that
get in the way of logical and effective choice making. Since there is probably
no person who is not prone to bias of one kind or another, it seems fair to identify
bias as a universal. A number of biases that can get in the way of effective
choice making have been identified previously, and in some detail (DeVito, 2016a). So, in brief:
· In the ambiguity bias, your choices
are heavily influenced by the desire to reduce ambiguity.
· In the bandwagon bias, you make your
choice by following the herd, especially those you view as “attractive”.
· In the anchoring bias, your choices
are heavily influenced by what comes first.
· In the confirmation bias, your
choices are influenced by initial beliefs.
· In the status quo bias, your choices are
influenced against change.
Choices have constraints. Some choices are made with few
constraints—there is almost total freedom to decide one way or the other. So,
let’s say you’re wealthy and want to buy a car—your choices are limitless as to
the car you buy—after all, you can afford any one of them, even that new Lamborghini.
But you still need a car and so your choices have to be made among the
available car choices. In other cases, your choices are much more limited and
restricted. If you’re in the military, for example, you may choose to put on
your left shoe before the right one but you may not choose the kind of shoes
you put on.
Choices are reasonable. Or at least the choices you make seem
reasonable at the time you make them. When you make a choice, you’re no doubt selecting
the choice that you think at that time and in that situation is the best of the
available choices. Things may change—and often do—and as a result your decision
may prove to be extremely effective (you bought the right stock and are now
extremely wealthy) or extremely ineffective (you bought the wrong stock and
lost all your money). But, at the time you make the choice, you’re making the
right choice.
Choices are purposeful. Choices have a purpose; they are
debated and made to achieve some purpose, some aim. Choice makers have an end result in mind. And,
not surprisingly, purposes vary greatly in importance. Some choice purposes
hardly seem like purposes; they are almost automatic and usually of little
consequence and so we rarely notice them—the shirt you wear or the salad you
order. Other choices are more important and involve more significant
purposes—choosing a life time partner, selecting a job offer, determining when
to retire, or relocating to another state or country. Some purposes are
self-focused--what can I do to get that promotion--and others are other-focused—what
can I do to help the homeless--and may be viewed as existing on a
continuum—perhaps from selfish to altruistic. So, although purposes vary widely, one or more
purposes are always present.
Choices are difficult. All choices are difficult. But,
there’s a continuum. Some choices involve
very little difficulty and some involve a great deal. There are at least two
reasons for choice difficulty. One source of difficulty is the similarity in
the pros and cons of the available choices. When the choices are very similar,
there is considerable difficulty; when the choices differ widely in their positive/negative
qualities, the choice is less difficult. Another source of difficulty comes
from the importance of the choice; unimportant choices are easier to make than
important ones.
Choices involve risk. Choices, by their very nature,
involve risk, specifically the risk of making a poor choice and, at the same
time, the risk of not choosing the one you should have chosen (Ellsberg, 2001).
The risk, then, is not only in making a bad choice, it’s also in not making a
good choice. Some risks are so minor
that they are not perceived as risks—for example, the restaurant you select for
dinner is minor but still involves risk. Other choices are of course
riskier—selecting a college or a major or a job or a house, for example.
Choices have consequences. Stephen Covey (2004, p. 70) once
noted that “While we
are free to choose our actions, we are not free to choose the consequences of
our actions.” And because the consequences cannot be chosen or predicted with
complete accuracy, the choice maker is taking a risk. Sometimes, the consequences are only
for the choice maker—the entrée to select, for example. Sometimes, and probably
most of the time, the consequences involve other parties as well—for example,
the decision to divorce or start a business or have a child. Some consequences
are severe—the type of medical treatment you seek—and others are relatively
inconsequential—the sneakers you buy. And
yet, even this seemingly obvious example needs qualification and illustrates an
important principle of choice making and that is that even choices that seem
insignificant and having only minor consequences, may in some situations prove
very significant. The choice of new sneakers that you take with you on a 4-week
safari, for example, may prove extremely consequential.
Choices are culturally influenced. Culture influences all aspects of
communication and influences choice making in a variety of ways. Geert
Hofstede’s (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) typology of cultural
differences posits, among other dimensions, that cultures differ in, for
example, their primary orientations to individualism-collectivism,
masculine-feminine, and restraint and indulgent. Those from an individualist
culture are more likely to make choices that benefit the self, whereas those
from collectivist cultures are more likely to make choices that benefit the
group. Those from masculine cultures—those that emphasize assertiveness and
power—will make choices that are consistent with this cultural orientation—in
contrast to those from a feminine culture whose decisions would give primary
attention to relationships. Those from restraint cultures will make choices
that will be of primary value in the future—saving or going to college, for
example, while those from indulgent cultures are more likely to make choices
that will give pleasure and satisfaction in the present—buying that expensive
suit or cutting classes to go to the beach, for example.
Choices are influenced by
personality. Not
surprisingly, the personality of the choice maker will influence the types of
choices made. As already noted, choices involve risk but people vary in the
degree to which they are willing to take risks. At the extremes are those who
are risk takers and those who are risk aversive. Risk takers are likely to make
choices that involve greater risk, going all-in in poker or betting one’s last
dollar on a horse. Some are risk aversive and prefer to hold on to the chips
and the money for fear of losing it. And, some choice makers are maximizers and
others are satisficers (Simon, 1956). In making a choice, maximizers spend an
enormous amount of time analyzing the pros and cons of each and every choice,
determined to make exactly the right choice, to maximize their benefits. On the
other hand, are satisficers—a term coined by Simon—who aim to make a choice
that will be satisfying, that will suffice.
Choices are influenced by
socio-economic status. Like psychological influences,
there are also socio-economic influences. At the most obvious level, the money
that people have enables them to have a wider array of choices than those
without such financial resources. So, in planning a vacation, wealthy people
have many more choices--of location, accommodations, length of stay, and just
about everything that goes into a vacation. Those of more limited means, are
similarly more limited in their possible choices. Persons who are well educated
will likely spend more time evaluating choices and will be less impulsive and
perhaps less prone to bias than those with less education and knowledge.
Perhaps it’s more appropriate to say that the culture,
personality, and sociology of the individual will conspire to influence choice
making—the person from an individualistic culture who is a wealthy risk taker
is going to make and evaluate choices very different from someone from a collectivist
culture who is poor and risk aversive.
The universals identified here are surely not the only ones
that could be identified—maybe even not the most important. And likely some
will disagree that those noted here are in fact universals. But, as already
noted, this is a preliminary attempt—a discussion starter—to identify some
features that are common to all choice-making behavior and that hopefully will
advance our understanding of this crucial process, a process that George Eliot
called “the strongest principle of growth.”
REFERENCES
Covey, S. R.
(2004). The 7 habits of highly effective
people. NY: Free Press.
DeVito, J. A. (1996). Brainstorms:
How to think more creatively about communication (or about anything else).
NY: Longman.
DeVito, J. A. (2016a). Biases in making choices. Etc.: A Review of General Semantics 73,
314-320.
DeVito, J. A. (2016b). Making choices. Etc.: A Review of General Semantics 73, 173-179.
Ellsberg, D. (2001). Risk,
ambiguity, and decision. NY: Taylor & Francis, 2001.
Greenberg, J. H., ed. (1963). Universals
of language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T, Press.
Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2013). Decisive: How to make better choices in life and work. NY: Random
House/Crown.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Iyengar,
S. (2011). The art of choosing. NY:
Hatchette/Twelve.
Schwartz,
B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. NY: Harper
Perennial.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the
environment. Psychological Review 63
(2), pp. 129-138.
*Joseph A. DeVito, Ph.D., is
Professor Emeritus, Hunter College, City University of New York.
