Deciding: Direct vs. Indirect Decision-Making
Deciding has always been the most critical part of determining a good deed from a bad one. Arguments on such ends have always been controversial but, authors including Keer et al. (2010) and Ormrod (2004) have conceptualized the ideal ways of deciding.
Direct Decision-Making
According to Keer et al. (2010), there is a direct way or route of deciding. The only permissive manner to decide is to access the current situation using cognitive reasoning and overall intention. For instance, when deciding whether smoking is good for one's health or not, direct decision making is required. To effect this, incorporation of both affect and cognition, as determined by Ormrod (2004), requires a quick explanation of the variances of the situation. As long as a person is aware of the influence their case brings to the result they can articulate what to do next and thus, make a direct and prompt decision.
Indirect Decision-Making
On the other hand, Ormrod (2004), determines that there is an indirect decision-making process which entails the processing of motivational factors. Motivation is a crucial determinant of whether a person is willing to engage in specific actions or not. Similarly, Ormrod (2004), describes that motivation has always been a learning curve for any human being. Differentiation comes in when a person uses their learning experience as a means of knowing what the right decision to make is. As such, this is considered as an indirect directive to deciding since a person has to correlate between motivation and factors of influence to know what is the right move to make. Coherently, both authors have conceptualized that decision making can take two forms: direct and indirect.
References
Keer, M., van den Putte, B., " Neijens, P. (2010). The role of affect and cognition in health decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 143-153.
Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
