Biases And Psychological Traps Of Intuitive Decision Making

“Unnatural Selections” In the article, “Unnatural Selections” by Barry Schwartz, he explains and proves with reasoning and evidence how individuals are influenced by whether a choice is a default or not. He persuades the readers by using three different methods, credibility, logic, and emotion. In this selection you will understand how he uses these devices.

In Chapter 3, there were 12 areas of bias spread across the 3 areas of heuristics. The main theme of the text was to prove that we are predisposed to certain outcomes. As we make important decisions we rely on our memory, or a number of past events, or even ignoring facts. Overall, we are biased in many ways when it comes to making decisions, or predicting outcomes of a particular event.

Chapter five in the book “Judgment in Managerial Decision Making” Max. H Bazerman and Don A. Moore is titled Framing the Reversal of Preference. This chapter explains how framing or alternating of a problem can defer one’s decision making process. In a written form of questions, the words may be manipulated by a certain frame effect that influences a person’s decision or answer to the question. Reversal of preference is a theory that people change their mind or preference when the decision involves more than one variable. When the decision is surrounded by similar suggested outcomes the mind can then decide on what information is most important. Framing is part of the reversal of preference by affecting one’s judgment and placing influence on the final decision.

I think one of the weaknesses that I have when it comes to trusting and believing in my intuition is that not all the time do I select the right answer or the right way of doing something. Sometimes rethinking may be required for me and in a few instances, I have had to rethink a couple of things because my intuition didn’t always pay off. Sometimes something can be so easy to do or to plan for that it’s not about intuition or anything else expect to do

Society once had a conjecture that only discriminatory people used stereotypes, however, studies in unconscious bias now reveal that we all are guilty of using stereotypes, all the time, without knowing it. Finally, the antagonist of equality has been found, and it is us. With a limited perspective, we all have a bias view of the world, this is because we are only capable of hearing, seeing, and reading what is around us. A definitive version of reality is not subject to one person. Our position in society helps inform our world view, such as, our race, class, gender, religion, and culture, impacting how we view, respond and react to every experience. Often times, decision makers or not aware of their bias, which can effect the decisions being made. To begin, I will define stereotyping as it is expressed in modern society and the impact of mass media, then I will explain the process of storing stereotypes in the brain, I will give a theory of why man-kind stereotypes, and then explain how it effects decision making.

According to Hammond, Priestly and Hakes, the confirming-evidence trap “leads us to seek out information that supports our existing instinct or point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it.” By choosing staff members based primarily on loyalty, MacArthur failed in his ability to assess the situation and make decisions based on facts rather than assumptions or intuition. A key decision made by MacArthur based on a cognitive bias was the assignment of MG Almond to command the X Corps and remain his Chief of Staff. In the Korea 1950 case study MacArthur made an intuitive decision regarding MG Almond’s ability to command X Corps. MacArthur selected MG Almond because of his loyalty to MacArthur, not because of his experience in amphibious operations or reputation as a good commander. MacArthur did not even discuss the selection of MG Almond as the X Corps Commander with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which troubled the Joint Chiefs. This decision was strictly based on emotion rather than a deliberative style of

Personal decision making is influenced by a range of biases, many of which we are unconscious of. Being more aware of these biases reveals how individual decision making can be improved. (Reference…)

All humans are flawed in that their brains immediately want to come to one conclusion or another and can subconsciously lead themselves to a conclusion even when attempting to reduce cognitive and perceptual biases. To combat this, there will be the need to implement checks and balances on the human brain in order to ensure that there are few or no biases being reached by the brain. Much of this can be done by exercising some of the tactics of checks and balances as highlighted by readings this week. A simple concept, it states; that in respect to the outcome of an analysis, if the opposite outcome was reached would I, the analyst be surprised by that outcome? This is an interesting method to check the human brain and ensure that a thought provoking and rational decision is reached. The perception of a situation by the human mind is something that is more fragile the longer the mind is exposed to that perception. As it is based on the expectation of what the situation is, it is difficult to stop the mind from creating a picture of

How many times have we heard the saying “follow your heart” or people following their “guts” when making a decision? Soldiers in time of war are successfully recorded to use their instincts or “guts”, while engaged in life-threatening situations, in order to minimize life loss. A mom, “instinctively” knows when her child is feeling discomfort, without much need for words. Consecutively, expert chess players can predict how a game will end, by the mere look at pictures of a game. However, news reports in the States show policemen wrongfully shooting down suspects, while making snap judgments; more so, a tendency in judging the right job applicant, regardless of

Difficulty of coming to a conclusion of choice between the occurrence of multiple options is demonstrated

For the most part, our decision-making processes are either sub-conscious or made fairly quickly due to the nature of the decision before us. Most of us don't spend much time deciding what to have for lunch, what to wear, or what to watch on television. For other, more complex decisions, we need to spend more time and analyze the elements of the decision and potential consequences. To assist with this, many people employ the use of a decision-making model. Utilizing a

The intuition model is about how we see people and what we think of them based on our first impression. The studies that have been based on this model look at the central and peripheral traits and at the primacy and recency effects.

Myriad decisions affront us every day. Each decision is decomposable into sub-decisions. For instance, consider the mental turmoil or apathy required to determine whether you shall go grocery shopping. First, you determine an initial need for grocery shopping (i.e., you are out of milk, eggs, etc.). Next, you consider what you would rather (an evaluation of utility) do. This cost-benefit analysis continues until going seems to bring greater utility or until staying does. Though these calculations require a second or so in your mind, in decomposing this choice, one finds a series of individual decisions contributing to the final. These subdecisions may “How much is milk worth my going to the store?” or “How much does this television show dissuade me from going to the store?” However, one can go deeper still. In answering each of the above subquestions, you subconsciously evaluate the options on a scale of utility. Consider this concept, though: for any arbitrarily selected value on that scale, you must subconsciously “decide” if the value is satisfactory--a boolean decision (see Fig. 1). Additionally, all but the lowest layer of subdecisions are considerable as independent decisions in different contexts. Accordingly, these decisions are likewise decomposable to final boolean decisions, assuming all high level “decisions” are decomposable. Also note these boolean decisions are never consciously considered in first order as that requires additional levels of

What do these biases entail? Kreitner and Kinicki (2013) list 8 biases that effect are decision making. Lee and Lebowitz (2015) writers for Business Insiders, reports that there are 20 cognitive biases. No matter the different types, there is agreement that we have to acknowledge the human element in making

Myriad decisions affront us every day. Each decision is decomposable into sub-decisions. For instance, consider the mental turmoil (or apathy) required to determine whether you shall go grocery shopping. First, you determine an initial need for grocery shopping (i.e., you are out of milk, eggs, etc.). Next, you consider what you would rather do--an evaluation of utility. This cost-benefit analysis continues until shopping or staying is perceived with marginally greater utility. Though these calculations require a second or so in your mind, in decomposing this choice, one finds a series of individual decisions contributing to the final. These sub-decisions may “How much is milk worth my going to the store?” or “How much does this television show dissuade me from going to the store?” However, one can go deeper still. In answering each of the above sub-questions, you subconsciously evaluate the options on a scale of utility. Consider this concept though: for any arbitrarily selected value on that scale, you must subconsciously “decide” if the value is satisfactory—a boolean decision (see Fig. 1). Additionally, all but the lowest layer of sub-decisions are considerable as independent decisions in different contexts. Accordingly, these decisions are likewise decomposable to final boolean decisions, assuming all high level “decisions” are decomposable. Also note these boolean decisions are never consciously considered in first order as that requires additional levels