The Consumer Psychology of the Mosque at Ground Zero

Recently, there has arisen a hotly contested issue with the Islamic faith in America. Before I tread on such sacred ground, I want to make clear that I am not taking a side but rather pointing out the consumer-oriented psychological implications behind the issue. And I believe it would help for those making the decision, as well as for those forming an opinion as to which decision should be made, to understand the psychological reasons behind either building a mosque a ground zero or not building a mosque at ground zero. The decision is really, like anything else, a consumption decision.

Those who are making the decision--as well as we who are forming an opinion--are choosing between alternatives to maximize their satisfaction. At the base level, deciding whether or not to build the mosque at ground zero is no different than choosing between the meaty, cheesy allure of a quarter pound burger and the health benefits of a light salad. Each choice reflects a set of values and the choice that will be made will reflect the values that are most important to the decision-maker. Is flavor more important or is health? In the same way, we might ask in regards to the mosque issue, 'Is freedom of religion more important or is patriotism?' Building a mosque at ground zero is a clear win for expressing freedom of religion but it is a smack in the face to those who understand 9/11 as an American tragedy. Similarly, not building the mosque at ground zero eases patriotic tensions but sends the message that some religions are allowed to be practiced more freely than others.

What complicates this matter is the fear of what economists call 'negative externalities.' Sometimes, when we make choices based on our values, the consequences of our choice ends up affecting people who weren't involved in the decision. That is an externality. When it effects them badly, it is a negative externality. Sure, if we decide in favor of religious freedom, we can see ourselves as more tolerant, but what if that provides a gateway to more violent, religiously motivated terrorist activities? On the other hand, the patriotic alternative could also produce negative externalities. In not building the mosque at ground zero, the Islamic faith may become viewed as increasingly more un-American--causing Muslims who are nowhere near ground zero to get the brunt of the hostility.

So, what is to be done? Like I said, I'm not taking a position on what should be done. But I will say what I believe will be done. When all the cards are played, decision-makers will make the choice that most closely alligns with their values based on all the information they have. Even considering possible externalities, those in charge of deciding whether or not to build at ground zero will be deciding based on their values. Similarly, we who are not involved in the decision but still indignant as to what decision should be made are asserting our own values by the opinion we form. It all comes down to what is more appealing to the decision-maker--the burger or the salad.