Making good decisions

Decisions, decisions! We all have to make them. Some are trivial and some are life-altering. Sometimes we’re pleased with the results, other times we regret them. Here are some thoughts on the kinds of decisions we have to make, and things we can do to help us make decisions we can live with.

But first I’d like to explain the drive-reduction model of behavior, something I learned about when I was studying gestalt psychology. It has to do with motivational priorities. According to this model, we constantly have an emerging drive that needs to be satisfied: thirst, hunger, elimination of body waste, attention, pain reduction/avoidance, sexual gratification, etc. If the emerging need is extreme (i.e. you’re dying of thirst or hunger), your exclusive focus is on meeting that need, and you may  engage in extreme or uncharacteristic behaviors to get what you need. Once a need is met, another drive comes to the fore. As Gilda Radner put it, in her SNL role of Rosanna Rosanadana, “It’s always something!”

Either/or conflicts can be approach/approach or avoidance/avoidance. An example of an approach/approach conflict is when Tom is attracted to both Susan and Joan, who are friends. He can’t court both of them, so he has to decide which one of them he’s most attracted to. He might make a decision and make a move, or might get stuck in ambivalence and not act at all. In an avoidance/avoidance conflict, one has to choose which of two undesirable alternatives is the “lesser of two evils.” If a person’s only available opportunity to make money is a job that is repugnant to her, she has to choose between taking that job or living day-to-day in dire poverty, hoping that another opportunity will eventually become available.

A third kind of conflict involves a single prospect that has both positive and negative aspects. This is called an approach/avoidance conflict. It may be that a prospect seems relatively attractive from a distance, but the closer one approaches it, the less attractive (or more frightening) it becomes. This can be a recipe for protracted ambivalence – going back and forth.

Consider an alcoholic’s conflict regarding sobriety. He may want to stop drinking and may see the benefits of sobriety clearly, but the longer he goes without a drink, the less attractive – or more frightening – the prospect of lifelong sobriety becomes, relative to having a drink right now. Recognizing that sobriety is the best option in the long term, but craving a buzz, he may decide “I’ll quit tomorrow.”  This is an example of a profound, and often persistent, state of ambivalence.

One method I’ve taught as a therapist, to assist clients in resolving ambivalence regarding a major decision, is listing positives and negatives. Let’s say Rhonda is being courted by Jim. She thinks he’s handsome, enjoys his company, and  especially enjoys all the attention he lavishes on her. But when she senses that he’s about to propose, she’s unsure about what to do. So she draws a line down the middle of a sheet of paper, puts a “+” at the top of the left-hand column and a “-” at the top of the right-hand column. Then she “shotguns” her thoughts, jotting down everything (positive or negative) that pops into her mind about her prospects for happiness with Jim as a husband.

On the positive side, Jim (1) has a great job and makes enough that she won’t have to work outside the home if she doesn’t want to, (2)  is sexually attractive and (3) good in bed, (4) is generous, (5) has a great personality and (6) sense of humor, (7) is popular and well-respected, and (8) treats her like a queen, always telling her how much he loves her. Now, in the case of some +/- lists, there may be a nearly-equal number of positives and negatives, giving you a numerical basis for comparison. But in Rhonda’s case, she can only think of two negatives. She doesn’t like Jim’s father – but she could live with that. However, number two outweighs all of the positive qualities she’s listed: she isn’t in love with Jim.

So it’s not always a numerical comparison of positives and negatives. The final step in this method is to assign a weight to each quality listed in each column. One quality in one column might outweigh all of the qualities in the other. Using this method to decide between two attractive job offers, the weighing of qualities might be helpful because a quantitative comparison reveals one job to be slightly more attractive than the other.

The shotgunning of ideas can be very helpful when a group has to arrive at a decision. Any group member in the room can call out a factor or idea relevant to the decision, and someone records it (i.e. on a whiteboard or a large piece of paper taped to the wall) for all to see. Once all relevant factors the group has come up with are on display, the group doesn’t assign weights as with the +/- method, but rather discusses the relative merits of each. In this manner the group can arrive at a well-considered decision that everyone (or almost everyone) can live with, because it was based on group consensus.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s