Chapter 12: Decision making and reasoning

Judgment and Reasoning

Used to select from among choices or to evaluate opportunities

Decision-making

Cognitive process of choosing between multiple options to select a course of action or belief

• We are very bad at making decisions

Type 1 (reactive) thinking

Fast and easy thinking; rely on heuristics

• Quick and intuitive

• “I did what felt right” or “listening to my gut”

• Limbic system

• Amygdala and hippocampus: process emotions and memories

Type 2 (reflective) thinking

slower, more effortful thinking

• Logical and analytical (PFC)

• Dorsolateral PFC

Emotions and decision making

Just like memories, anticipated events can cause a strong bodily reaction

Somatic marker

Bodily arousal in anticipation of certain events that we use to evaluate options and make decisions

• Relying on your “gut feeling”

Affective forecasting

your predictions for your own emotions

• However, we are very bad at predicting our future emotions

• Overestimate intensity and duration of emotions

Utility Maximization

Weighing the costs and benefits to seek a path that maximizes gain and minimizes cost

• Utility: value you place on a particular outcome (positive or negative)

• Seek to gain as much utility as possible (ex - gain utility by eating at a fancy resturant vs. gain utility by saving money)

• Example - Choosing classes for next semester (think about the classes that are interesting and that help fill your major requirments)

Heuristics

Mental shortcuts we use to make judgments and decisions quickly and efficiently

• They save us energy and usually serve us well

• Like schemas, they are automatic: unconsious, unintentional, not energy consuming

• Want to make decisions in a reasonable time frame and reduce the avaliable information to a manageable amount

Types of heuristics

• Satisficing

• Elimination by aspects

• Representativeness

• Availability

• (Ignoring) base rate

• Anchoring

Benefits of Heuristics

• Lighten the cognitive load

• Efficient for making decisions fast

• Often unconsious and automatic

• Helpful for everyday decisions

Limitations of Heuristics

• Error prone

• Can lead to biases

• Much greater chance of error

Satisficing (Heuristic)

Consider options individually, and then select an option as soon as we find one that is satisfactory, or just good enough to meet our minimum level of acceptability.

• Decision making limited by bounded rationality

• Strives for adequate, rather than perfect results

• used to make decisions efficiently, rather than exhaustively

• Example - buying a pack of gum before catching a plane

Satisficers

Find a solution that meets their needs and moves on without obsessing over alternatives

• Settle for good enough options

• Do not bother comparing decisons with others

• More satisfied with outcomes

Maximizers

Compare all available options to find the absolute best one

• Tend to be more overconfident in decisions

• Less satisfied due to stress, regret, and second-guessing

• looks for maximum benefit & highest utility

• Compare decisions with others

Elimination by aspects (heuristic)

Make decision by eliminating options based on perceived importance

• Breaking down a complex choice into smaller parts, and then eliminating options that do not meet the criteria for each aspect (Tversky, 1972)

• Helpful when we have more alternatives than we can consider in the time available

• Use some elements of satisficing to narrow the range of options, then we rely on more thorough and careful strategies to make our final decision

Representativeness (heuristic)

When classifications are made based on how typical (representative) we think a thing is of a prototype or category

• Similarity between an event and other events in the category

• Many categories are homogenous enough so that category members do resemble one another

• Very easy to use and often works (except when category members are not homogenous)

Errors with representativeness heuristic

• Gambler’s fallacy: mistaken belief that the probability of a given random event is influenced by previous random events, and is now likely to change

• Believe the pattern representative of past events is related and now must be “corrected”

• Each coin toss is an independent event that has an equal probability of occurring

• Hot hand fallacy: opposite of gambler’s fallacy; believe a certain course of events will continue

• Can lead to poor judgments and decision-making if an existing schema doesn’t account for the situation

• Make decisions based on small samples of data because we assume our sample is representative of the whole population

• Contributes to prejudice and stereotypes

Availability heuristic

When judgment is based on how easy it is to bring something to mind

• How “avaliable” something is in your mind

Error with availability heuristic

Attribute substitution: can lead to incorrect judgments because avaliability does not equal frequency or probabaility

Schwarz et al. 1991 Study

• Four groups participate in recall task

• Recall task: think of instances in which you are assertive or unassertive

• Recall amount: asked to list 6 or 12 instances

• DV: after that, rate how assertive you are

Why is some information more avaliable than others?

• Ease of recall

• Recency

• Emotional impact

• Media exposure

Ease of recall

mistake for frequency or probability

Recency

can have disproportionate impact on judgment

Emotional Impact

dramatic, emotionally charged, or impactful

Media Exposure

Sensationalized and rare events are likley to be covered in the news

• & avaliability of information: high frequency, but less publicized causes of death (car accidents) lead people to believe these events are less probable than plane crashes

(Ignoring) Base- Rate Information

• Not taking base-rate info (the actual likelihood of something) into account

• We ignore general statistical information in favor of specific instances

• Often accompanies other heuristics (representataiveness and avaliability)

• Example of representativeness and ignoring base rate information: Alice enjoys poetry and dresses eccentrically. is alice more likley to be a poet or an accountant? - Most people say poet, even though statistically, there are far more accountants than poets in the general population.

Anchoring

Individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information (the anchor) they receive

• Using number as a starting point, and then adjusting one’s anwser away from this anchor

• Negotiations

• Sales prices

• Anchors can be completley irrelevant

Implausible Anchors

Irrelevant numbers can influence a person’s judgment

• Participants asked, “was Mahatma Gandhi younger or older than X years when he died?”

•Before or after age 9 (low anchor)

•Before or after age 140 (high anchor)

• Results: despite knowing anchors were (obviously) wrong, participants in both groups were influenced by the initial number

•Low anchor: average estimate of 50

•High anchor: average estimate of 67

•Final guesses biased toward initial anchor

Biases

Systematic errors in thinking that can influence how people interpret information, make decisions, and act that resulting from heuristics

• Framing bias

• Illusory correlation

• Confirmation bias

Framing Bias

The way options are presented influences the selection of an option

• Decision based on whether the options are presented with positive or negative connotations

• Choose options that demonstrate potential gains even if both options objectivley lead to the same outcome

• Dependent on the wording, setting, speaker, and situation

Illusory correction

Predisposed to associate two unrelated events as if they are causally linked

• The instances in which the relationship is confirmed are more easily recalled from memory than instances that contradict our biased expectations

• Astrological signs and relationship compatibility

• “Lucky” superstitions

• Ice cream sales and violent crime

Confirmation Bias

Seek confirmation rather than disconfirmation of what we already believe

• Seek evidence that confirms our beliefs

• When disconfirming evidence is made available, we fail to use it to adjust our beliefs

• When we encounter confirming evidence, we don’t question it (but we do with disconfirming evidence)

Logic and Reasoning

Categorical syllogisms: logical argument that involves drawing a conclusion from two premises

• All syllogisms include two premises and one conclusion

• Premise 1: All cognitive psychologists are athletes.

• Premise 2: All athletes are kind.

• Conclusion: Therefore, all cognitive psychologists are kind.

• This syllogism is valid, but the conclusion is false because the premises are false

Syllogism Quantifiers

• Universal affirmative statements

• Universal negative statements

• Particular affirmative statements

• Particular negative statements

Universal affirmative statements

positive statements about all members of a class (all A are B)

Universal negative statements

negative statements about all members of a class (none of A are B)

Particular affirmative statements

positive statements about some members of a class (some A are B)

Particular negative statements

negative statements about some members of a class (some of A are not B)

Group decision making

• Enhanced decision-making and problem-solving

• Expertise from each group member

• Collective information: increase in resources and ideas

• Shared cognition: improved group memory over individual memory

Groupthink

Group decision-making style characterized by excessive tendency among group members to seek agreement and avoid conflict

• High cohesion

• Isolated from outsiders & lack of objective leadership

• High stress situation

Individual Decision making (pros & cons)

Pros:

• faster than group decision-making

• clearer accountability

• efficient and simple

Cons:

• fewer ideas

• possible delay in decision-making if left to do it alone

• potential for bias

Group decision making (pros & cons)

Pros:

• diversity of ideas & can build off others ideas

• greater commitment to ideas

• interaction can be fun and serve as a team building task

Cons:

• takes longer

• group dynamics, such as groupthink, may occur

• social loafing may make it difficult to identify responsibility for decisions

Symptoms of group think

• Closed-mindedness: unwilling to consider alternative ideas

• Feeling invulnerable: believes they are inherently right, given the information available to them

• Feeling unanimous: an illusion where members believe everyone shares the same opinions (self-censorship)

• Squelching of dissent: those who disagree are ignored and ostracized

• Mind-guards: enforce norms, withhold information that may challenge group decision

Antidotes for Groupthink

• Group leaders play an important role in preventing groupthink

• Leaders should:

•Encourage constructive criticism and impartiality

•Ensure that members seek input from people outside the group

•Actively prevent conformity

• As a group, members should:

•Work in small groups (ideal 3-5 members), as well as work in a larger group

•Meet separately to consider alternative solutions to a single problem