|
Decision
making style
According
to Myers (1962), a person's decision making process depends to a significant degree on their cognitive style. Starting from the work of Carl Jung, Myers developed a set of four bi-polar
dimensions. The terminal points on these dimensions are: thinking and feeling; extroversion
and introversion; judgement and perception; and sensing and intuition. He claimed that a person's
decision making style is based largely on how they score on these four dimensions. For example, someone that scored near the thinking, extroversion, sensing, and judgement ends of the dimensions would tend to have a logical,
analytical, objective, critical, and empirical decision making style.
Cognitive and personal biases in decision making
It is generally agreed
that biases can creep into our decision making processes, calling into question the correctness
of a decision. Below is a list of some of the more common cognitive biases.
Selective search for evidence - We tend to be willing to gather
facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support
different conclusions.
Premature
termination of search for evidence - We tend to accept the first alternative that looks like it might work.
Conservatism
and inertia - Unwillingness to change thought patterns that we have used in the past in the face of new circumstances.
Experiential limitations - Unwillingness or inability to look beyond the scope of our past experiences; rejection of
the unfamiliar.
Selective perception - We actively screen-out information that we do not think is salient.
Wishful thinking or optimism - We tend to want to see things in a positive light and this can distort our perception and
thinking.
Recency - We tend to place more attention on more recent information and either ignore or forget more
distant information.
Repetition bias - A willingness to believe what we have been told most often and by the greatest number of different
of sources.
Anchoring and adjustment - Decisions are unduly influenced by initial information that shapes our view of subsequent information.
Source credibility bias - We reject something if we have a bias against the person, organization, or group to which the
person belongs: We are inclined to accept a statement by someone we like.
Incremental decision making and escalating commitment - We look at a decision as a small step in a process and this tends
to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. This can be contrasted with zero-based decision making.
Inconsistency - The unwillingness to
apply the same decision criteria in similar situations.
Attribution asymmetry - We tend to attribute our success
to our abilities and talents, but we attribute our failures to bad luck and external
factors. We attribute other's success to good luck, and their failures to their mistakes.
Role fulfillment - We conform to the
decision making expectations that others have of someone in our position.
Underestimating uncertainty and the
illusion of control - We tend to underestimate future uncertainty because we tend to believe we have more control over events than we really do. We believe we have control to minimize potential problems in our decisions.
Faulty generalizations - In order to
simplify an extremely complex world, we tend to group things and people. These simplifying generalizations can bias decision making processes.
Ascription of causality
- We tend to ascribe causation even when the evidence only suggests correlation. Just because birds fly to the equatorial
regions when the trees lose their
leaves, does not mean that the birds migrate because the trees lose
their leaves.
Cognitive and personal biases in decision making
It is generally agreed that biases can creep into our decision making processes,
calling into question the correctness of a decision. Below is a list of some of the more common cognitive biases.
•Selective search for evidence - We tend to be willing to gather
facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support different conclusions.
•Premature termination of search for evidence - We tend to accept the first alternative that
looks like it might work.
•Conservatism and inertia - Unwillingness to change thought patterns that we have used in the
past in the face of new circumstances.
•Experiential limitations - Unwillingness or inability to look beyond the scope of our past
experiences; rejection of the unfamiliar.
•Selective perception - We actively screen-out information that we do not
think is salient.
•Wishful thinking or
optimism - We tend to want to see things in a positive light and this can distort our perception and thinking.
•Recency - We tend to place more attention on more recent information and either ignore or
forget more distant information.
•Repetition bias - A willingness to believe what we have been told most often and by the greatest
number of different of sources.
•Anchoring and adjustment - Decisions are unduly
influenced by initial information that shapes our view of subsequent information.
•Source credibility bias - We reject something if we have a bias against the person, organization,
or group to which the person belongs: We are inclined to accept a statement by
someone we like.
•Incremental decision making and escalating commitment - We look at a decision as a small step
in a process and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. This can
be contrasted with zero-based decision making.
•Inconsistency - The unwillingness to apply the same decision criteria in similar situations.
•Attribution asymmetry - We tend to attribute
our success to our abilities and talents, but we attribute our failures to bad luck and external factors. We attribute other's
success to good luck, and their failures to their mistakes.
•Role fulfillment - We conform to the decision making expectations that others have of someone
in our position.
•Underestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control - We tend to underestimate future
uncertainty because we tend to believe we have more control over events than we
really do. We believe we have control to minimize potential problems in our decisions.
•Faulty generalizations - In order to simplify an extremely complex world,
we tend to group things and people. These simplifying generalizations can bias decision making processes.
Ascription of causality - We tend to ascribe causation even when the evidence
only suggests correlation. Just because birds fly to the equatorial regions when the trees lose their leaves, does not mean that the birds migrate because the trees lose their leaves.
Cognitive neuroscience of decision making
Decision making in groups
Decision
making in groups is sometimes examined separately as process and outcome. Process refers to the interactions among individuals
that lead to the choice of a particular course of action. An outcome is the consequence
of that choice. Separating process and outcome is convenient because it helps explain
that a good decision making processes does not guarantee a good outcome, and that a good outcome does not presuppose a good
process. Thus, for example, managers interested in good decision making are encouraged
to put good decision making processes in place. Although these good decision making processes
do not guarantee good outcomes, they can tip the balance of chance in favor of good outcomes.
A
critical aspect for decision making groups is the ability to converge on a choice.
Politics is one approach to making decisions in groups. This process revolves
around the relative power or ability to influence of the individuals in the group. Some
relevant ideas include coalitions among participants as well as influence and persuasion. The use of politics is often judged
negatively, but it is a useful way to approach problems when preferences among actors are
in conflict, when dependencies exist that cannot be avoided, when there are no super-ordinate
authorities, and when the technical or scientific merit of the options is ambiguous.
In
addition different processes to make decisions, groups can also have different decision rules. A decision rule is the approach
used by a group to mark the choice that is made.
•Unanimity is
commonly used by juries in criminal trials in the United States. Unanimity requires everyone to agree on a given course of
action, and thus imposes a high bar for action.
•Majority requires
support from more than 50% of the members of the group. Thus, the bar for action is lower than with unanimity, but it can
create a group of "losers" in the process.
•Consensus decision-making tries to avoid "winners"
and "losers". Consensus requires that a majority approve a given course of action, but that the minority agree to go along with the course of action. In other words, if the minority opposes the course of action,
consensus requires that the course of action be modified to remove objectionable
features.
•Sub-committee involves assigning responsibility for evaluation of a decision to a sub-set of a larger group, which then
comes back to the larger group with recommendations for action. Using a sub-committee
is more common in larger governance groups, such as a legislature. Sometimes a sub-committee includes those individuals most affected by a decision, although at other times it is useful for the larger group to have a sub-committee
that involves more neutral participants.
Less desirable group decision rules are:
•Plurality, where the largest
block in a group decides, even if it falls short of a majority.
•Dictatorship, where one individual (typically with the greatest power) determines
the course of action.
Plurality
and dictatorship are less desirable as decision rules because they do not require the involvement of the broader group to
determine a choice. Thus, they do not engender commitment to the course of action chosen.
An absence of commitment from individuals in the group can be problematic during the implementation
phase of a decision.
There
are no perfect decision making rules. Depending on how the rules are implemented in practice and the situation, all of these
can lead to situations where either no decision is made, or to situations where decisions
made are inconsistent with one another over time.
Principles
The
ethical principles of decision making vary considerably. Some common choices of principles and the methods which seem to match
them include:
•the most powerful person/group decides
•everyone participates in a certain class of meta-decisions
•everyone participates in every decision
There
are many grades of decision making which have an element of participation. A common example is that of institutions making
decisions which affect those they are charged to provide for. In such cases an understanding
of what participation is, is crucial to understand the process and the power
structures at play.
Decision making in one's personal life
Some
of the decision making techniques that we use in everyday life include:
•listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, popularized by Benjamin Franklin
•flipping a coin, cutting a deck of playing cards, and other random or coincidence methods
•accepting the first option that seems like it might achieve the desired result
•tarot cards, astrology, augurs, revelation, or other forms of divination
•acquiesce to a person in authority or an "expert"
|
