Values: What Are Value Conflicts In Decision Making?

In some decision situations, the decision-maker confronts conflicting values. Unlike preferences or goals, values are enduring beliefs about what is important, good, or right. When two or more values point to incompatible actions, there is a value conflict. Such conflicts need to be detected and managed, and decision governance should not be designed to generate them. What is a value conflict? And how can a decision-maker know that they are facing a value conflict?

This text is part of the series on decision governance. Decision Governance is concerned with how to improve the quality of decisions by changing the context, process, data, and tools (including AI) used to make decisions. Understanding decision governance empowers decision makers and decision stakeholders to improve how they make decisions with others. Start with “What is Decision Governance?” and find all texts on decision governance here.

What Is a Value Conflict?

A value conflict arises when a person must choose between alternatives that are justified by values that are psychologically or morally incompatible. In psychology, values are defined as abstract goals that serve as guiding principles in life (Schwartz, 1992). These include values such as honesty, security, equality, loyalty, freedom, and achievement. Each value reflects a motivational orientation that influences perception, preferences, and judgment.

In Schwartz’s theory of basic human values, values are structured along a circular continuum, such that adjacent values are compatible (e.g., benevolence and universalism), while opposing values are in tension (e.g., self-direction vs. conformity; stimulation vs. security). A value conflict, therefore, is not simply a hard choice, but one in which deeply held beliefs pull the decision-maker in incompatible directions.

For example, a public official may experience a value conflict when deciding whether to disclose sensitive information (transparency) that could jeopardize national security (safety). Similarly, a corporate executive may face a conflict between maximizing shareholder value (profit) and ensuring fair labor conditions (social justice). These are not simply technical problems; they are moral dilemmas rooted in the structure of competing values.

Value conflicts can be intrapersonal (within a single individual), interpersonal (between individuals), or institutional (within or between organizations). They are often latent and may not be immediately recognized by the decision-maker.

How Can a Decision-Maker Know They Are Facing a Value Conflict?

Recognizing a value conflict requires awareness that the alternatives under consideration cannot simultaneously satisfy all the relevant values. This often involves a sense of unease or difficulty in justifying a decision. Several psychological mechanisms are relevant:

• Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957): When an individual holds two conflicting values or must act in a way that violates a central value, they experience psychological discomfort. This dissonance is often a signal that values are in conflict.
• Moral Emotions (Haidt, 2001): Feelings such as guilt, shame, or moral outrage may emerge when one value is prioritized at the expense of another. These emotions serve as internal cues that something ethically important is at stake.
• Motivational Ambivalence (Schwartz et al., 2012): If the decision-maker is equally drawn to different courses of action for different value-based reasons and is unable to resolve the tension, this ambivalence is often a sign of value conflict.

More pragmatically, decision-makers can use the following reflective questions:

1. Are the decision alternatives associated with different kinds of moral or ethical concerns?
2. Do I feel unable to choose because each alternative violates something I believe is important?
3. Would I justify different choices in different roles (e.g., as a professional, parent, or citizen)?

If the answer to these questions is affirmative, the decision likely involves a value conflict.

Signals That Indicate the Presence of a Value Conflict

Decision-makers can become more effective at diagnosing value conflicts by learning to interpret specific signals that arise during the decision process. These signals operate at the cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social levels.

Signal 1: Competing Desirable Outcomes

When the decision involves multiple attractive goals that map onto opposing values, this is an indicator of value conflict.

Example: Choosing between accepting a promotion requiring relocation (achievement, ambition) and remaining close to family (loyalty, tradition).

Schwartz’s (1992) theory identifies ten basic values structured in a circular model. Values that are adjacent in this model are motivationally compatible, while those on opposite sides are in conflict. Self-enhancement values such as power and achievement are in tension with self-transcendence values like benevolence and universalism. When decisions activate values from opposing poles, individuals experience psychological conflict, which can manifest as hesitation, justification difficulty, or emotional discomfort.

Signal 2: Emotional Ambivalence or Discomfort

If the decision-maker experiences strong, mixed emotions such as guilt, anxiety, or hesitation, this often reflects the emotional salience of clashing values.

Example: Feeling pride and guilt simultaneously after prioritizing cost-cutting over job security.

Haidt’s (2001) social intuitionist model suggests that moral judgment is driven primarily by intuitive emotional responses, rather than deliberate reasoning. When individuals perceive that their actions or decisions violate important values, they experience moral emotions such as guilt, shame, or pride. These emotions serve as rapid signals that value incongruence is present, guiding post-hoc rationalization and behavioral adjustment.

Signal 3: Role Conflict

A decision that activates different values depending on the role the person occupies (e.g., manager vs. employee, parent vs. professional) suggests a value conflict.

Example: A journalist must balance public interest (truth) with protecting a source (loyalty).

Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue that individuals derive their identity from the social roles and groups they belong to. Each role comes with its own normative expectations and value hierarchies. When a decision forces a person to choose between roles—such as a journalist balancing loyalty to a source against the public’s right to know—the resulting value conflict stems from these competing identity-based value commitments.

Signal 4: Justification Difficulty

Struggling to explain or justify a decision—especially when it involves compromising one value in favor of another—is a cognitive signal of value conflict.

Example: Finding it difficult to defend a decision to automate services that increase efficiency but reduce access for vulnerable populations.

Stone and Cooper (2001) expand on Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory by proposing a self-standards model, which emphasizes that dissonance arises when behavior deviates from internalized personal standards or values. When individuals cannot coherently justify a decision because it contradicts a valued self-standard, they experience discomfort that signals a value conflict, often leading to efforts at re-alignment or rationalization.

Signal 5: Reframing or Rationalization

If the decision-maker frequently changes how they describe the decision context, or uses post-hoc rationalizations, this can indicate an unresolved value conflict.

Example: Reframing a layoff decision first as a financial necessity, then as an opportunity for restructuring.

Shalvi et al. (2015) show that individuals often engage in moral rationalization to reduce discomfort after making ethically ambiguous decisions. This involves reframing decisions in ways that minimize their moral implications, such as emphasizing efficiency over fairness. This behavior is driven by the need to maintain a moral self-image and is indicative of unresolved value conflict, especially when rationalizations shift over time.

Signal 6: Stakeholder Polarization

When stakeholders in the decision context emphasize opposing priorities or moral claims, it often reveals competing values embedded in the decision.

Example: Investors prioritize profitability, while employees argue for workplace equity.

Tetlock (1986) presents a value pluralism framework suggesting that people hold multiple, often incompatible, values that become salient depending on context. In organizational settings, this means that different stakeholders prioritize different values, such as efficiency versus equity or innovation versus risk control. Disputes among stakeholders often signal that the decision activates value pluralism, making compromise or structured deliberation essential.

Signal 7: Irreversibility and Ethical Stakes

High-stakes decisions with irreversible consequences often activate multiple values and heighten awareness of potential trade-offs.

Example: Authorizing the use of personal data in AI development where transparency, privacy, and innovation all compete.

Bazerman and Tenbrunsel (2011) argue that people often make ethically flawed decisions not out of malice, but due to ‘bounded ethicality’—the inability to recognize the ethical dimensions of a decision due to competing pressures or limited attention. High-stakes or irreversible decisions are more likely to highlight ethical trade-offs among values such as privacy, accountability, and innovation. The heightened salience of these competing values can expose previously hidden value conflicts.

References

• Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
• Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
• Kidder, R. M. (1995). How Good People Make Tough Choices. William Morrow.
• Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
• Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2010). Personal values and behavior: Taking the cultural context into account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(1), 30–41.
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
• Schwartz, S. H., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688.
• Shalvi, S., Gino, F., Barkan, R., & Ayal, S. (2015). Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(2), 125–130.
• Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 228–243.
• Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827.