THOUGHT AND KNOWLEDGE

Six doctors in white hospital coats approach your bed. No one is smiling. The results of the biopsy are in. One doctor explains that the cells were irregular in shape; they appeared abnormal. It seems that the tumor was not clearly malignant, but not clearly normal either. They probably removed the entire tumor. It is hard to be certain about these things. You have some choices. You could leave the hospital this afternoon and forget about this unpleasant episode, except for semi-annual checkups. There is an above-average chance, however, that some abnormal cells remain and will spread and grow. On the other hand, you could choose to have the entire area surgically removed. While this would be major surgery, it would clearly reduce the risk of cancer.

How do you decide what to do? Your first response is probably to ask the doctors what they recommend. But if you do, it is likely that you will not receive a consensus of opinion. Often physicians disagree about the best way to treat a disease, especially when there are many options, as in the case of complicated diseases like cancer, kidney disease, or AIDS. It is possible that some will believe that the risk of cancer is small enough to warrant the wait-and-see decision (why rush to operate?); others will believe that immediate surgery is the best decision (better safe than sorry). Ultimately, the decision is yours.

Of course, not all decisions are a matter of life and death. We are constantly making minor decisions without much thought, such as what to wear, what to eat for breakfast, which pen to buy, and when to go to sleep. Everyone is faced with a lifetime of decisions, and some of them have major and far-reaching consequences. In this chapter, we are concerned with life’s major decisions. Major decisions include medical decisions like the one at the beginning of this chapter, whether to marry, whom to marry, if and when to have children, what kind of occupation to choose, how to spend your hard-earned dollars, etc. These are all personal decisions that virtually everyone has to make. We also must decide on a host of political and business issues like whether to support off-shore drilling for oil, when to increase a company’s inventory, which stock to invest in, how to negotiate a contract, which party to support during political upheaval, and how to increase profits. In this chapter, you will learn skills designed to help you make sound decisions. To accomplish this, we look at the way psychologists and others study decision making, examine common pitfalls and fallacies in the decision-making process, consider the risks involved, and develop a general strategy or plan that you can use when faced with a major decision.

Decision making always involves making a choice between a set of possible alternatives. If you have read the previous chapters in this book, then you have already encountered several sections on how to make intelligent choices. In the chapter on analyzing arguments, for example, you considered the way in which reasons support or refute a conclusion. When analyzing arguments, you make many decisions about the relevance and accuracy of information and how well the reasons that are provided support an action or a belief. In the chapters on hypothesis testing and using probabilistic information, you learned about drawing tree diagrams, collecting information, and computing likelihoods to make decisions. Because decision making is a central theme in critical thinking, different aspects of it are presented throughout this book.

Making Sound Decisions

Decisions per se, take place when a goal is specified, when information is gathered and judged, when values are used to choose the best solution, and when detailed plans are made and valuated.

—Wales & Nardi (1984, p. 1)

The decision-making process is frequently stressful. Ask anyone you know who has recently made an important decision and you will most likely be told about sleepless nights, loss of appetite (or excessive eating), irritability, and generalized feelings of anxiety.

It may seem that one way to cope with the stress of decision making is to avoid making decisions whenever possible. Although avoidance is one way of handling stressful decisions, it is seldom a good way. You should be pleased to know that there is good evidence that people make better decisions after they receive instruction in critical thinking (Helsdingen, van den Bosch, van Gog, & Merrienboer, 2010). Every time you find yourself avoiding a decision, remember that, in most cases, avoiding a decision is, in fact, making one without any of the benefits of a carefully thought out consideration of the problem.

A Framework for Decision Making

Results from past research have indicated that poor decisions with regard to drugs, alcohol, and other issues involving personal risks often stem from poor decision-making strategies.

—Kevin Knight and Donald F. Dansereau (1992, p. 1)

There is a common model or framework that can be used to organize our thinking about decision making. It will be extended in the following two chapters, which are concerned with solving problems and thinking creatively. The three topics that are discussed in these chapters—decision making, problem solving, and creative thinking—have a great deal of overlap in the way they are conceptualized. The term “decision making” is used when the task requires the decision-maker to select the best alternative from among several possibilities, and the term problem solving is used when the task requires the problem solver to generate alternatives. This sort of distinction is arbitrary, and in real life, it is often difficult to decide if the task requires the generation of alternatives or the selection of alternatives. A decision or solution is creative when it is both unusual and good or effective. Take the time to examine Figure 8.1 carefully. It contains the essential components of a framework for understanding and improving decision making, problem solving, and creative thinking.

In Figure 8.1, the process of making a decision is depicted as a series of boxes, each of which represents a different component, and several arrows that show the recursive nature of the process. These boxes are set in a large oval, which represents the context in which the decision is being made. The first stage in making a decision is the identification or realization that a decision is needed. This is followed by the generation of alternatives that would satisfy a goal or the desired outcome that is implied by the decision. Usually each alternative has pros and cons associated with it, or, in the language of decision making, costs and benefits. The task for the decision-maker is to choose the “best” alternative. The consideration of what is “best” requires an evaluation phase in which “best” often turns out to be multidimensional. Best for whom? Best by what criteria? Best in the immediate future or long-term?

Figure 8.1 A multiprocess model of decision making. Each of the boxes represents a stage in the decision-making process. The arrows show that the process is recursive with frequent recycling through the stages (e.g., generating alternatives may be followed by reframing the decision). The rectangular boundary represents the effects of context.

Decisions also involve uncertainty because we cannot know in advance the consequences of our actions. Much of the difficulty when making decisions lies in judging which alternative is most likely to turn out best. Decisions usually are made with missing information and involve guesses and predictions about future events. Decision making is also a recursive or recycling process because the nature of the decision may change as more alternatives are generated and evaluated. The decision also requires an action, although it may not be an overt movement—you could decide whom or what to believe, or to do nothing at all. All of these processes occur in a context that influences what happens and rely heavily on the information you bring with you to the decision and the information that you obtain during the decision-making process. For example, you may make a different decision if you are being observed by your friends than if you were alone (context effect), and an expert in a field may reach a different decision than a novice (effect of prior knowledge). Personal values are also a strong influence on the way the decision is phrased, the alternatives that are generated, and the way they are evaluated.

In the medical scenario at the beginning of this chapter, the decision-maker must take into account the likelihood of developing cancer at some time in the future, the risks and pain of surgery, the pros and cons of various treatment regimens, and personal factors such as feelings about quality of life issues. When you decide which stock to invest in, you must consider what the economy will be like in the years to come. Similarly, the decision whether to have children requires that you think about what your life will be like with children who do not even exist yet. Most of life’s important decisions involve competing goals: multiple players whose decisions will, in turn, affect the choices that you have; time constraints; and uncertain and changing contexts. Not surprisingly, psychologists can offer guidelines for making good decisions, but they do not have an exact prescription that will work for all decisions.

Good Decisions and Subjective Utility

After critical thinking instruction, trainees considered more observations, identified more cause-and-effect relations, provided better arguments, and made better decisions according to subject matter experts.

—Anne S. Helsdingen, Karel van den Bosch, Tamara van Gog, and Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer (2010, p. 537)

Decision making is an active process. The decision-maker takes responsibility for her or his own future. After all, you are in the best position for determining how you want to spend your life and how you should make the business and professional decisions that will ultimately reflect on you. Good decision-makers are more likely to get the good jobs and make favorable decisions about their personal lives as well. Recall from the first chapter that critical thinking was defined as the use of those skills or strategies that increases the probability of a desirable outcome. But, the quality of a decision needs to be judged on the basis of what was known or should have been known at the time the decision was made; sometimes, good decisions will have undesirable outcomes and sometimes poor decisions will have good outcomes. Although many famous instances of good decisions (profitable investments, successful army maneuvers) and bad decisions (Watergate, the U.S. attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran) come to mind, it is important to realize that a decision should be judged to be good or bad before the outcome is known, not after the fact. You could decide to bet your life savings on a horse race (a bad decision) and “get lucky.” Of course, good decisions will result in desirable outcomes much more frequently than poor decisions will.

Often, we will never know if the best decision was made. If you are a college senior who must decide between a lucrative career in accounting or a more personally rewarding career as a high school English teacher, you may never be sure if you picked the better option because you can only speculate about the career you did not select. Robert Frost, the famous American poet, captured this feeling in his poem about a traveler who comes to a fork in the road. The traveler can never know about “the road not taken.”

Good decision-makers will have more desirable outcomes than poor decision-makers, but what makes an outcome desirable? This is a difficult question to answer because people have different values and different goals. In deciding on a career path, it seems obvious that decisions must reflect the individual predilections of each person making this decision, just as we would not all want to marry the same person or live the same life. Somehow, we need to weigh personal values, probabilities of success, costs, and benefits to determine which choice is the best balance of these and other difficult-to-quantify variables (Baron, 1997). The term subjective utility refers to the value of a particular choice to an individual. It is a personal assessment about a choice (subjective), which is one reason why decision making will never be an exact science like mathematics.

As I said previously, before a decision can be made, the individual must realize that a decision is needed and that there are several possible alternatives. Let’s consider an example. Monica is taking several demanding college courses. She needs to supplement her income by working part-time and has family obligations as well. Her free time is virtually nonexistent. Monica needs to consider alternatives to her current life style. She must decide how to juggle all of these commitments. Monica has to realize that she can change her life. Too often, this first step is missed and inertia sets in. Simply stated, the problem is that Monica has too many responsibilities and this is making her feel anxious and stressed. The best solution will give her more time for herself while still allowing her to fulfill her responsibilities; the way she decides to balance these competing demands will depend on her personal value system (e.g., importance of spending time with her family versus the amount of money she “needs” to maintain a life style that she wants). As these are essentially conflicting goals, the best decision will probably involve a compromise that will only partially satisfy each goal. It is not likely that she will find a course of action that will allow her to fill her days with leisure activities while maintaining high grades, earning money, and caring for her family.

The objective criterion for a good decision is that it has high subjective utility for the person making the decision. Some possible good decisions for Monica include finding a higher paying job, reducing her expenses so she would need to work fewer hours, beginning a more efficient study program, taking a lighter course load, and visiting her family less frequently. You may be surprised to find that with a little effort, several possibilities occur to you that you might otherwise never have considered.

Devoted “Trekkies” (fans of the television and movie series called Star Trek) can recall many stories in which the plot involved particularly clever decision making. Consider, for example, the Trekkie-classic movie, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In the opening scene, an attractive pointy-eared Vulcan is facing a serious problem. A sister spaceship has wandered into enemy territory and has sent a distress signal. If she does not go in to save them, they will perish; if she does, she risks enemy attack. She nervously decides to follow them into enemy territory and is immediately apprised that her starship is under attack. We soon learn that this is a computer-simulated drill designed to test the decision-making skills of future Starfleet commanders and that only one person has made the correct decision in this drill. Of course, it is Captain James T. Kirk, the hero of this series. The question of interest is whether to attempt to save the sister ship by entering enemy territory and thus risk enemy attack. Captain Kirk did neither—he redesigned the computer problem so that he would have additional choices with more favorable outcomes. For him, the problem was “how to change contingencies in a mock drill.” For others, the problem had been “how to save the sister starship without being attacked.” Captain Kirk made a superior decision because he defined the problem in a unique way. His unusual and excellent alternative made this decision very creative, a topic that is discussed in a later chapter. Some may say that he cheated or “copped out” by redesigning the simulation, but perhaps, he would use his ability to define problems in a unique way if he were out in space and that is what makes him an outstanding Starfleet commander. The point being made here is that often there are alternative ways of formulating what the decision requires, and some formulations will result in more favorable outcomes than others. Different formulations will lead to different solutions.

Descriptive and Prescriptive Processes

Whenever there is a simple error that most laymen fall for, there is always a slightly more sophisticated version of the same problem that experts fall for.

—Amos Tversky (quoted in Gardner, 1985, p. 360)

Researchers who study decision making look at what people do when they are making a decision, often contrasting what people actually do with what they should do in order to maximize the probability of a good decision. This is the difference between a descriptive and a prescriptive account of the process. Any program that is designed to help people make better decisions will have to take into account what typically is right and wrong with most decisions (Descriptive Process), and then provide a systematic way of eliminating or reducing common errors while increasing those processes that underlie good decisions (Prescriptive Process). With so many processes involved and so many decisions that need to be made, it is easy to find ways that decision making goes wrong.

Baron (1990) analyzed all thinking into “search” and “inference” stages. The search occurs when we have to generate alternatives, and to a lesser extent, when we decide what constitutes a good decision. The inference relates to the kinds of judgments that are made and the way information is used. Thinking goes wrong when the search process misses some good alternatives or when the inference is incorrect (e.g., selecting an alternative that really will not solve the problem or will create other problems).

The alternatives that people generate are tied to the way memory is structured and accessed. An oft-repeated theme throughout this book is the pervasive influence of memory on all aspects of thinking. The sort of alternatives that are generated will depend on what we can recall in the particular situation. Decision making is also constrained by the amount of cognitive effort that is invested in the processes of generation and evaluation. We do not want to spend huge amounts of time and energy in making most decisions, so we rely on shortcuts that are likely to be useful, but sometimes lead to poor decisions. The idea is to be flexible so that the cognitive effort is proportional to the importance of the decision.

Pitfalls and Pratfalls in Decision Making

Great moments in history all turned on someone’s judgment as to what should be done and someone’s decision to do it.

—Hal R. Arkes and Kenneth Hammond (1986, pp. 211–212)

A pitfall is a danger or difficulty that is not easily avoided. If you have ever spent long afternoons at the beach, you have probably seen bratty kids creating pitfalls. They dig holes in the sand and cover them with newspaper so that unsuspecting sun lovers will fall into them. The word “pratfall” needs no formal definition for fans of comedians who are famous for their frequent pratfalls. The American Heritage dictionary defines a pratfall as “a fall on the buttocks.” Put these terms together and you will realize that unless common pitfalls in decision making are avoided, the decision-maker will slip and fall on the part of the anatomy that is featured on blue jeans commercials. Let’s examine some of the common fallacies or pitfalls in decision making.

Failure to Seek Disconfirming Evidence

Some of the worst disasters nations have known are traceable to faulty judgments or distorted perceptions of their political leaders.

—Arie W. Kruglanski (1992, p. 455)

Suppose you have a friend who is always working on crossword puzzles, anagrams, mazes, and other similar problems from puzzle books. He corners you one day with the following problem:

I am going to give you a series of numbers. This series conforms to a simple rule. You have to figure out what the rule is. The way to do this is by coming up with your own series of numbers. I will tell you whether your own series conforms to this rule. You can give me as many series of numbers as necessary to discover the rule. When you believe that you know the rule, tell it to me and I will let you know if you are right.

Reluctantly you agree to participate. You are given the following number series:

2 4 6

Stop right now and think how you would go about generating other number series that conform to the same rule as this one.

This problem was actually presented to many subjects in an experiment conducted by Wason (1960, 1968). He found that most people had difficulty with this task. Suppose that you believe that the rule is “any continuous series of even numbers.” To test this rule most subjects would try series like “14, 16, 18.” The experimenter would respond that this series conforms to the rule. To be certain, most subjects would try again with another series, “182, 184, 186.” Again, the experimenter would respond affirmatively. Confidently, the subject would announce the rule, “Any continuous even series of numbers.” The experimenter then informs the subject that this is not the correct rule.

Typically, subjects will try again, this time thinking up a new rule that will describe the correct number series. Suppose, this time the subject decides to try out the rule “the middle number is halfway between the other two.” Now the subject asks about the series “50, 100, 150.” The experimenter answers that this series is correct. The subject tries again “1006, 1007, 1008” and is told that this also conforms to the rule. Even more confident this time, the subject announces that the correct rule is “the middle number is halfway between the other two.” The experimenter tells him that this is not the correct rule.

Have you discovered the correct rule by now? It is “increasing whole numbers.” After almost an hour of working on this problem, one of Wason’s subjects came up with this rule: “The rule is that either the first number equals the second minus two, and the third is random but greater than the second, or the third number equals the second plus two, and the first is random but less than the second.” You can imagine how this poor subject felt when he was told that this rule was incorrect.

Why is this problem so difficult? In all of the sample number series most of the ones people actually try, the number series conform to the rule they have in mind. There is an infinite number of possible number series that conform to the correct rule, “numbers in increasing order of magnitude.” What subjects should have done is try out series that would disconfirm the rule they were trying out. For example, if you believed that the correct rule is “any continuous series of even numbers” you should try the series “1, 2, 4.” If the experimenter tells you that you are correct, then you know that the rule “any continuous series of even numbers” must be wrong.

The tendency to seek information that agrees with the ideas we have is called confirmation bias. We have a bias or predilection to look for confirming information. It is among the most pervasive and pernicious biases in decision making. Other examples of the confirmation bias or failure to seek disconfirming evidence were discussed in the chapter on the development of reasoning skills. Examples can probably be found in every applied setting. For example, studies of military decision making have identified confirmation bias as a particular problem because it leads decision-makers to focus on a single hypothesis and then seek only information that confirms that hypothesis (Puvathingal & Hantula, 2012).

What can we infer from the bias to seek confirming evidence? Suppose someone confronts your best friend with “the opportunity of a lifetime.” A dynamic saleswoman offers him the chance to invest in a new corporation that will manufacture and sell computers that are so small they will fit in your wallet. It sounds good, but he is unsure. Prudently, he decides to do some investigating. He checks out 10 computer companies that are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. He finds that IBM is a large profitable corporation. If he had only invested in IBM when it was just being formed, he would be a rich man today. He can already imagine himself lighting cigars with $10 bills. What advice would you give your friend?

Hopefully, you would point out to him that he only looked for evidence that supports the decision to invest in the corporation as only substantial corporations are listed on the stock exchange. He also needs to seek evidence that would disconfirm this decision. He should find out how many new computer corporations with big dreams have gone bankrupt and how many have not gone bankrupt in the last 10 years. He also should attempt to estimate the future market for wallet-sized computers.

The confirmation bias is a pitfall in decision making. A large-scale study of NASA scientists showed a strong confirmation bias (Mynatt, Doherty, & Tweney, 1978). (And yes, these are rocket scientists!) We all need to be trained to seek and examine data that are inconsistent with the ideas we are considering. There is good evidence that when people are required to consider counterevidence, they make better decisions (Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980). In general, people spend resources (time, effort, money) looking for the wrong sort of information to inform their decisions—we need to deliberately seek information that would run counter to a preferred choice.

Can people learn to avoid, or at least reduce, the strong bias for information that supports a favored view? Lilienfeld, Ammirati, and Landfield (2009) believe that this is the most important question we can pose about decision making, and that if we can correct this cognitive error, human welfare will be enhanced. The research literature on this question is surprisingly scant, but Lilienfeld et al., (2009, p. 395) conclude that they are among the meliroists, “namely those who believe that human thinking often departs from rational standards and that such departures may be rectifiable by intervention efforts.” Every time you recognize your own tendency toward confirmation bias and take deliberate steps to consider evidence that does not support your preferred conclusion, you are proving them right.

Overconfidence

Overconfidence is a decision-making pitfall that is related to the bias to seek confirming evidence. In general, most people do not see the need to improve the way they make decisions because they believe that they are already making excellent decisions. The unwarranted belief that we are usually correct is a major, real-life barrier to critical thinking. The tendency to be overconfident about the quality of our thinking is a theme that runs through several chapters in this book. Most people believe that they think well—it is other people whose thinking needs improvement. After all, if most people are very confident that they are making the correct decision, why should they exert the time and effort to learn and apply the skills of critical thinking?

Do you think that groups make better decisions than individuals do when they are working alone? In other words, are two (or more) heads better than one? Most people reason that when several people come together to make a decision, it will be better than any of the participants alone because collectively there is more knowledge in a group. Virtually all public policies and legal and corporate decisions are made by groups. But, it seems that a big disadvantage of groups is that the participants in groups are overconfident in their collective decisions and thus disregard information that might cause them to alter their decision (Minson & Mueller, 2012). Researchers found that dyads (groups of two people) tend to make decisions that are as good as larger groups, and obviously, there are lower costs associated with smaller groups. Most importantly, groups need to be made aware of their tendency toward overconfidence and learn to be open to additional information that might alter their decision.

Irving Janis (1972) did classic work on the overconfidence of groups. His analysis (some of which is presented later in this chapter) was based on numerous real-life examples and the concept of group think has been applied to decisions about the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Pearl Harbor, the launch of the Challenger, and more recently, the belief by many people in the United States that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Group think refers to the “illusion of invulnerability, myopia, biased selective attention, and overconfidence” (Hastie, 2006). Group think results when groups do not welcome dissent and pressure its members to make unanimous decisions.

Availability Heuristic

A heuristic is any “rule of thumb” that we use to make decisions and solve problems. It does not always give us the right answer, but it is a helpful aid. (Definitions of these terms sometimes differ in mathematics.) Psychologists usually distinguish between heuristics and algorithms. An algorithm is a procedure that will always yield the correct answer if you follow it exactly. Let’s try a simple example from mathematics to clarify these terms. Remember the procedures you learned in solving long division problems. Given a problem like you were first told to estimate about how often 176 would “go into” 7019, as it is unlikely that you ever learned the 176 tables. You might estimate it to be about 4 times. The problem thus far would look like this:

You would check out this estimate with the appropriate multiplication.

Oops, too large!

You would soon realize that 4 was too large and would probably try 3. This procedure is a heuristic. It is a guide or aid to help you find the correct answer, but it does not always work perfectly as seen in the above example. On the other hand, an algorithm always leads to the correct answer. If you want to find the area of a rectangle that is 3 feet long and 2 feet wide, you will always get the correct answer if you use the formula: length × width, or in this case, 3 feet × 2 feet = 6 square feet. The use of an appropriate algorithm is an example of cognitive economy, a topic that was introduced earlier in this book. We do not need to use mental effort and “reinvent” ways to find the area of a rectangle when there is a ready-to-use algorithm that we can call upon for the correct answer.

Availability is a commonly used heuristic. It is the belief that information that is easily available in memory occurs more frequently than information that is more difficult to recall. The term availability heuristic was coined by two prominent psychologists, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1973; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), who conducted numerous experiments on decision making and, in the process, provided a catalog of thinking errors. In order to understand the availability heuristic, consider the following questions:

1. Are there more words in the English language that begin with the letter “r” or have the “r” in the third position?

2. Would you expect the 2010 census to show that there are more librarians or farmers in the United States?

3. Are there more deaths due to homicide or due to diabetes-related diseases?

If you answer the first question like most people, you believe that there are more words that start with the letter “r” than there are words with “r” in the third position. In answering this question most people find that they can think of more words that start with “r” (rice, root, room, roam, religion, rhinoceros, rye) than have “r” in the third position (bird, torrid, horror, hero). In the jargon of psychology, words starting with the letter “r” are more available (in memory) than words with “r” in the third position. That is, they come to mind more easily. If you answered “words that start with ‘r,’” you were wrong. According to Berger (1995), the English language contains many more words with “r” in the third position than in the first position. It is just more difficult to think of them because it is easier to retrieve words from memory by the first letter than by the third. Earlier in this chapter I talked about the pervasive influence of memory in every aspect of critical thinking. This is another example of the way in which the kinds of memories we retrieve can determine how decisions are made.

If you have already read the chapter on likelihood and uncertainty, then you already know that there has been a backlash against the idea that humans are poor thinkers. In recent years, there has been more emphasis on accuracy in everyday thinking than in errors in thinking. Gigerenzer and his colleagues (e.g., Gigerenzer & Goldstein, 2011) examined several thinking biases to show that under some conditions, thinking with heuristics is fairly accurate. For example, in a study where students in Turkey and England were asked to forecast the results of English soccer matches, the students from Turkey, who knew very little about soccer in England, were as accurate as their English counterparts (Ayton, Onkal, & Reynolds, 2011). It seems that the Turkish students used the recognition heuristic—if they recognized the name of a team or the city it represented, they estimated that team would win more often than a team they never heard of or came from a town they never heard of. This heuristic worked well. The conclusion from this line of research is that accuracy in decision making depends on the way questions are asked, what is being compared, and a host of other variables. The goal of this book is to improve thinking, not to argue how good most of us are as thinkers—we can all always improve.

Your answer to the second question probably depends on whether you live in an urban or rural area. Most city dwellers believe that there are more librarians than farmers in the United States. After all, few city dwellers have ever met a farmer while they probably know, or at least know of, several librarians. Actually, there are many more farmers in the United States than there are librarians, a fact that was more likely to be answered correctly by readers from rural farm regions. This is another example of how the use of the availability heuristic can lead to the wrong decision.

Most residents of large cities probably believe incorrectly that there are more deaths due to homicide than to diabetes. The reason for this is not difficult to understand. Pick up any newspaper or watch television news on any day and there is likely to be a report of one or more homicides. Although you may know only a few people who have diabetes and may not know personally anyone who has been murdered, you have heard or read about many homicide victims, so there seems to be more of them. A study of people who watch many violent television shows found that these people believe that they are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than those who do not watch these shows (Gerbner, Grass, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980). Presumably they maintain this belief because examples of violent crimes are more readily available in their memory. This finding has important implications because it would be expected to affect how frequent viewers of televised violence vote on crime-related propositions and how they make decisions like buying a home burglary alarm, keeping a gun in the house, or going out at night.

The availability heuristic can be found in many applied settings. Its influence can best be understood with an example:

In a medical text written by Gifford-Jones (1977), the author discussed the difficult medical decision concerning whether women in their late thirties or early forties should have their ovaries removed when they are having a hysterectomy. Like all difficult decisions, there are costs and benefits associated with each alternative. In discussing how this decision is often made, Gifford-Jones (1977, pp. 174–175) wrote:

I recall operating some time ago with a former professor of gynecology at Harvard. He was in a rather philosophical mood and was pondering the pros and cons of what to do with the ovaries. “Sometimes whether or not I remove the ovaries depends on what has happened to me in the last few weeks,” he said. “If I’ve watched a patient die from cancer of the ovary, I often remove them. But if I’ve been free of this experience for a while, I’m more inclined to leave them in.”

Availability has been carefully studied in the laboratory by research psychologists because it plays a role in the way decisions are made in a wide range of settings. Consider how students rate the quality of a particular course or instructor. In one study, students were asked to list either two ways in which a course could be improved (an easy task) or 10 ways (a difficult task; Fox, 2006). Because most students could not think of 10 ways to improve a course, which they assumed to be the norm, they decided that they liked the course much more than those students who were told to list 2 ways the course could be improved. The ease with which we can retrieve information from memory plays an important role in the decisions we make.

The availability heuristic was used during an election in 2010 in California, in which Carly Fiorina (a business executive) was challenging the longtime incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer. In her campaign advertisements, Fiorina asked voters what Boxer had done for them. In fact, few people are able to name any action that their Senator has taken, so when asked this question, most people could not recall anything and concluded that Boxer had not done much during her multiple Congressional terms. But, politics are messy, and Boxer ended up winning, most probably because of various alleged scandals pertaining to Fiorina.

Representativeness Heuristic

Suppose that a young man in a pinstriped suit, black shirt, and white tie comes up to you and asks if you would like to make some money by betting on whether a coin lands on “heads” or “tails.” You look at him dubiously. He explains that it is really quite simple. He will flip one coin six times. All you have to do is bet on the pattern of heads and tails that will result from six tosses of a coin. Although there are many sequences possible, you decide to concentrate on three of them. Using the letter “H” to represent heads and “T” to represent tails, on which of the following three outcomes would you bet?

H-T-H-T-T-H

H-H-H-T-T-T

H-T-H-T-H-T

If you responded like most other people, then you selected the first series of heads and tails, probably because it seemed more similar to a random or chance pattern of heads and tails. In fact, all three series are equally likely. Any series of heads and tails taken six at a time is as likely to occur as any other. The above example demonstrates the belief that an outcome of a random process should look like or be representative of randomness. Because our common sense notion of randomness is that of a process without a pattern, we tend to think that H-T-H-T-H-T is not as likely to occur from six tosses of a coin as a more random-looking series. This, however, is not true. (What some people find even more surprising is that H-H-H-H-H-H is as likely to occur as H-T-H-T-H-T.)

Of course, you are more likely to get approximately equal numbers of heads and tails after many coin flips than you are to get mostly or all heads or mostly or all tails because there are more possible patterns that yield these outcomes. For example, there is only one pattern of outcomes that will correspond to 6 heads (H-H-H-H-H-H), while there are many ways to get 3 heads and 3 tails in 6 flips of a coin (e.g., H-H-H-T-T-T; H-T-H-T-H-T; T-T-T-H-H-H; H-T-H-T-H-T; etc.). Each series or pattern of heads and tails is equally likely. This concept is also discussed in Chapter 7.

To clarify the representativeness heuristic, which is the belief that any member of a category should “look like” or have the traits associated with its category, let’s try another example. Suppose you get a letter from an old friend from whom you have not heard in many years. He tells you that he is the proud father of six children—three girls and three boys. After trying to consider what life is like with six children, you then wonder about their birth order. Which of the following orders do you think is more likely (with “G” standing for girls and “B” standing for boy)?

B-B-B-G-G-G

B-G-G-B-G-B

If you have followed the discussion so far, you will realize that although the second series appears to be more representative of a random process, they are, in fact, equally likely.

Wishful Thinking (Pollyanna Principle)

People are excessively optimistic about marriage, work, sports, health, and life expectancy.

—Cade Massey, Joseph P. Simmons, and David A. Armor (2011, p. 274).

Quite often, people will overestimate their chances for success or the likelihood of a desired outcome. Halpern and Irwin (1973) found that when participants in an experiment wanted an event to occur (they would win money), they believed that it was more likely to occur than when its occurrence would have been unfavorable (they would lose money). It seems that humans are an optimistic species. The tendency to believe that pleasant events are more likely than unpleasant ones is a manifestation of wishful thinking, the idea that if we want something to happen it will. This has also been called the Pollyanna Principle in honor of the protagonist of a 1913 novel who always found something to be happy about, no matter how bleak the situation.

Optimism is a potent human trait that often directs how we think and act. Seligman (1991) identified optimism as a critical element in political elections. It seems that candidates who are optimistic about the future are more likely to garner winning votes than those who are pessimistic. He found that in 9 out of 10 presidential elections in the United States, the candidate who gave the more optimistic speeches won the election. Optimism may be a wonderful human trait, but not when it distorts the decision-making process. Good decisions rely on realistic assessment of likelihood, not optimistic ones. Failure to consider seriously unpleasant outcomes can lead to disastrous consequences.

Entrapment

Suppose you were offered the opportunity to bid on a $1 bill. You and some friends can make bids, and the highest bidder will pay the amount bid and get $1 in return. The only hitch is that both the highest bidder and second highest bidder must pay the amount they bid, but only the highest bidder will receive the dollar in return. Suppose that you agree to play and that you continue to raise your bid until you have offered 80 cents. Now a friend bids $1. What do you do? You will probably decide to bid $1.05 for the $1 because you will certainly lose $.80 unless you continue to increase your bid. Shubik (1971) has found that people will continue to bid amounts over $1 to win the dollar bill in an attempt to keep their losses at a minimum in this game.

What has happened in this game is entrapment, a situation in which an individual has already invested money, time, or effort and decides to continue in this situation because of the initial investment. Entrapment is also called sunk costs because of the importance that we attach to the costs we have already “sunk” into a course of action. People commonly fall prey to sunk costs. Consider Fred’s decision about his automobile. He has already replaced the muffler, brakes, and ignition system when he finds out that his car needs a new transmission. Because he has already invested so much money into his car, he feels “trapped” into replacing the transmission instead of buying a new car. Or consider another common example. Everyone has had the frustrating experience of calling on the phone for some information and being put on “hold.” After listening to the irritating strains of “elevator music” for several minutes, you need to decide whether to hang up or continue waiting. Many people continue to wait because of the time they have already invested. Astute readers are probably wondering if entrapment also works in relationships. The answer is “yes.” Can you think of a time when you or a friend decided to stay in a relationship because of the time already invested in that relationship?

Making decisions in light of previous investments requires that the individual consider why the investment has been so high either in terms of money or time, and whether, at this point in time, the car is worth the additional sum of money or the phone call is worth an additional 10 minutes on “hold.” Examples of entrapment are commonly found in government budget hearings (Fischer & Johnson, 1986). One argument in favor of continuing to support the development of the MX missile is that the millions of dollars that have already been spent on it would be lost if we decided to discontinue the project. Sometimes, politicians and others will try to minimize the appearance that they have wasted money by continuing to fund projects that should be discontinued (Arkes, 1996). If more people were vigilant for sunk costs, we would save money and other valuable resources that could be put to better uses. In a study of how people respond in sunk-costs situations, researchers asked subjects open-ended questions about common decisions (Larrick, Morgan, & Nisbett, 1990). Consider this one:

You and a friend just spent $7 each to see a movie. About a half hour into the movie, you both realize that it is “two thumbs down”—a really bad movie. What do you do? List some good reasons for staying until the end of the movie, then list some good reasons for leaving after a half hour.

Stop now and try this demonstration.

* * *

Look over your reasons. Of course, you just read about entrapment, so you are not a naive subject, but review the answers that you gave anyway. If you listed the fact that you spent $7 as a good reason for staying, you are demonstrating the fallacy of entrapment. If you listed as a good reason for leaving the fact that the movie is a waste of time, then you receive partial credit for recognizing the cost of staying. If you also listed the fact that you could be doing something better with your time, then you would get credit for recognizing that by staying you would also be losing out on doing some better activity. Let’s go over the reasoning again because I have found that many students have difficulty with this concept:

You already spent the $7 for the movie. No matter what you decide to do at this point in time, the money is gone, and you are down by $7, so it should not be relevant to your decision. You lost $7, no matter what you decide to do. At a half-hour into the movie, you have a decision to make. If you stay, you will not only have to endure a bad movie, but you will also miss out on a more pleasurable activity that you could be doing. Thus, there is a dual cost to staying—seeing a bad movie and missing out on some better activity. Try out this example with some friends or family. Explain the fallacy of sunk costs to them.

Psychological Reactance

Our emotional states have a major impact on the kinds of decisions that we make (Puvathingal & Hantula, 2012). We select alternatives that seem “best” to us, and our determination of what is best is not always based on sound rational criteria. One example of the effect of emotional states on the kinds of decisions people make has been labeled psychological reactance, which is resistance arising from restrictions of freedom. Consider this example: It has been a bitterly cold winter and you can hardly wait for a much deserved spring break. One of your close friends is planning on basking in the Fort Lauderdale sun. Another friend cannot wait to hit the slopes in Vail. Both friends have asked you to join them in their spring break revelry. As you consider the options, you begin to favor the bikini-clad vacation when your Florida-bound friend tells you that you must go to Florida with him. How does this loss of freedom affect your decision?

Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller. Used with permission by Universal Press Syndicate.

Logically, it would seem that being told that you must do what you want to do would have no effect on your decision, but many people do not react this way. Some people would react to this loss of freedom by deciding to go skiing instead. Whether you are dealing with your parents, an employer, or a foreign government, psychological reactance can interfere with the decision-making process by causing you to select a less desirable alternative.

Liking

It should seem obvious that people select alternatives that have been evaluated positively along some dimension. This point will be made more explicitly later in this chapter; however, it is important to consider here some of the factors that influence positive evaluations of an alternative when making a decision. In other words, what are some factors that determine liking?

Reciprocity

When assessing the costs and benefits of various alternatives, our subjective feelings about the alternatives play a large role in decision making. Simply put, we choose people and actions that we like. Reciprocity is one determinant of what and whom we like. We tend to like people who like us. In Cialdini’s (1993) delightful book about myriad influences that affect our thoughts and actions, he tells about the “World’s Greatest Car Salesman.” The super salesman seems to differ from other more mundane sellers in several ways, but the most interesting is his strange habit of correspondence. Super salesman sends a card to each of his more than 13,000 former customers each month. Can you guess the message on this card? No, it is not a list of maintenance tips or repair coupons. In fact, every card every month contains the same message: “I like you.” Twelve times a year, every former customer receives the same obviously impersonal message. It seems to work. When the time comes to decide where to purchase another car, these former customers are reminded of their “friend” who likes them. Reciprocity of liking apparently has a powerful effect on decision making in this context. Apparently this story has “gotten out” among car salespeople. When I was buying a new car, the salesman gave me a CD of his favorite music. The unspoken message was that I “owed” him for this gift and the only way to repay him was to buy the car he showed me.

The psychological literature is full of other examples of the influence of reciprocity on decisions. For example, you are much more likely to buy a product if I give you a free sample than if I do not. The next time you are in the supermarket when samples are being given away, watch how people respond to the covert pressure to buy the product they have just tasted. You will find that a surprisingly high number will buy the product. People seem to feel that they owe something in exchange for the “free” sample. Political favors are blatant examples of reciprocity-induced liking as are charitable requests that are accompanied by “gifts” like address labels, key rings, and stamped return envelopes.

Mere Exposure Effect

Suppose that you walked into a voting booth on a primary election day and were faced with the following choice:

County Solicitor (Choose One)

Myron Jones

John Adams

Victor Light

Unfortunately, you have not kept up with local politics, and are unfamiliar with the record of any of these candidates. Which candidate would you vote for? Studies indicate that you probably chose John Adams.

In an election in New Hampshire about 20 years ago, John Adams, an unemployed cab driver who did not campaign, won the Republican nomination for the State’s First Congressional District. Why did John Adams, a man who spent no money on his campaign and who never gave a speech, win his party’s nomination? Psychologists believe that when voters were confronted with three names they did not recognize, they picked the one linked in history with a political figure. Hence, prior exposure creates a sense of familiarity, which in turn can enhance your liking for the stimulus, a phenomenon known as the mere exposure effect.

Political commercials often operate on this principle. They repeatedly hark, “Vote for Brandon Lee, He’s the One!” Such commercials give absolutely no information about the candidate. They rely on the well-documented effect that familiarity will enhance liking. Based on this principle, repetition was commonly used in Nazi Germany and North Korean prison camps during World War II in an attempt to make their political ideologies more palatable to the prisoners.

What should you do if you face unknown candidates’ names in a voting booth? If you cannot vote intelligently for an office, skip that section and vote for the offices with which you are familiar. Intelligent voters ask themselves, “What do I know about these candidates?” and do not fall prey to a familiar sounding name.

Emotional States

Like many cognitive psychologists, I often forget the critical role that emotions play in the thinking process. (Astute readers will probably recognize this as due to the availability heuristic.) Intuitively, we all know that emotions are important. For example, would you ask your boss for a raise if you knew that she just had a fight with her husband? Of course, your boss’s relationship with her husband should be irrelevant to whether you get a raise, but a bad mood tends to spill over and affect unrelated decisions. So does a good mood. In an investigation of the way mood influences the way decisions are made, Bower et al. (1994) found that interviewees for a job were rated higher when the interviewers were given good news prior to the interview than when they were given bad news.

Do you want to know if you are at risk for a serious disease, such as Parkinson’s or cancer? In a recent study (Howell & Sheppard, cited in Wargo, 2012), participants underwent a simulated annual physical examination. Half of the participants first wrote about a time when they exhibited positive traits and thus felt good about themselves; the other half did not receive the “positive affirmations.” Participants who felt positive about themselves were more likely to opt for screening for a (hypothetical) serious illness. This is only one example of many of the benefits of positive affirmations, which have been found to improve achievement in school (Cohen, Garcia, Apfel, & Master, 2006) and to make people more open to political information that they originally opposed (Binning, Cohen, & Heitland, 2010).

It is easier to recognize the effect of emotions on the way we think than it is to correct for it. It is important that we all consider how our own moods may be affecting the quality of the decisions that we make, and we may also try to influence the mood of others who will be making decisions that affect us.

Unconscious Influences

Legally irrelevant situational determinants—in this case merely taking a food break—may lead a judge to rule differently in cases with similar legal characteristics.

—Shai Danziger, Jonathan Levav, and Liora Avnim-Pesso (2011, p. 6,892)

Judges are one group of people we count on for fair and reasoned decisions. We expect that legal decisions are based on facts, the laws, and reasoned judgment. But, like everyone else, judges are influenced by a host of variables about which they have no conscious knowledge. I am not referring to usual types of prejudices such as negative feelings toward the homeless or people with prior criminal records. Judges already know about prejudice, but like everyone else, it is easier to know about the negative effects of stereotypes than it is to fight against them. But, what about other types of influences? What about the effects of being tired and hungry? In a fascinating study, researchers found that approximately 65% of rulings are favorable to defendants at the start of a court session, but this percentage drops to close to 0% within a court session, then returns to 65% after a break that usually included a late morning snack or lunch (Danziger, Levav, & Avnim-Pesso, 2011). The researchers noted that they cannot determine whether it was the break, the food, or both that was responsible for the higher rates of decisions that were favorable to defendants, but this study clearly supports the literature showing that even experienced judges are subject to the same psychological biases that influence the rest of us, usually without our conscious awareness.

Few judges would believe that their decisions depend on the state of their stomachs or how rested they feel, but when they are confronted with the data, they could take steps to minimize these effects, such as taking multiple short breaks or consuming small snacks on a more frequent basis. The researchers assert that they expect similar results across a wide range of decision-making situations, including medical, financial, and admissions decisions, to name just a few. As the literature on unconscious influences on how we think, feel, and act grows (the first chapter has more examples), it underscores the need to take deliberate steps to make the unconscious conscious. The problem, of course, is that we cannot know about all of the possible unconscious influences, so we need to maintain a general mindfulness of the power of what we do not know, and we need to be humble about how rational we actually are.

What about other sorts of decisions—like financial ones? It seems that all sorts of decisions are influenced by factors that we do not realize. In one study, researchers varied the information people were given about the ratios of adult unmarried men to adult unmarried women in different cities (Griskevicius et al., 2012). When there was an excess of men, the men reported that they would save less money and would be more likely to borrow money for immediate expenses. Varying the ratios did not influence women’s intentions to save or spend money. These results were replicated across several studies using different types of dependent measures. For example, when there was an excess of men, they reported that they would spend more on an engagement ring, a dinner entrée on a date, and on a Valentine’s Day gift. Yet, the men were not aware that their responses varied according to the sex ratios they read about. The message is clear—decisions can be manipulated without our awareness or knowledge. We probably can never understand all of the influences on our decisions, but by carefully considering the type of decision we are making and using a system like the work sheet presented later in this chapter, we may be able to minimize the effect of unconscious influences.

Nudging a Decision

Decision makers do not make choices in a vacuum. They make them in an environment where many features, noticed and unnoticed, can influence their decisions. The person creates the environment … [He] is a choice architect.

—Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (2011)

A nudge is a gentle push in a direction that someone wants you to move. A cognitive nudge is much like a physical one—information is arranged in a way that makes it more likely that you will behave in a certain way. It is not like unconscious influences because the person is (usually) aware of that there is an attempt to influence an outcome, but it is subtle, and when done well, it can be effective. In their popular book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Thaler and Sunstein (2008) provide multiple examples of the way seemingly small changes in the environment change the decisions that people make.

Consider the problem of keeping public restrooms clean. A clever airport maintenance worker at the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam did just that and came up with the idea of etching a picture of a fly into men’s urinals—to give them something to improve their aim. According to Krulwich (2009), this is actually an old idea and one that apparently works. “Spillage” rates at the airport have dropped 80 percent because there it seems that men like to aim at targets. This is an example of a “nudge.”

If you find the idea of urinal behavior silly or even offensive, consider other more sober examples of the value of a nudge. Are you an organ donor? If you live in Austria, Belgium, France, or Poland, you almost certainly responded “yes.” But if you live in Denmark, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, or Germany, you probably are not. How can we explain huge national differences in rates of organ donation? In countries with high rates of organ donations, citizens are organ donors unless they register not to be; whereas in countries with low rates of organ donors, citizens have to register if they want to donate their organs (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Most people decide to accept the status quo. In the United States, polls show that 85% approve of organ donation, but only 28% have signed a donor card, which would allow the donations of their organs (after their death). Researchers believe a simple change from the “opt-in” system that is currently in use in the United States to an “opt-out” system would result in a substantial number of lives saved with the use of donated organs. The rate of organ donors for several countries in the European Union is shown in Figure 8.3.

Figure 8.2 An image of a fly etched in urinals is an example of a “nudge.” Men engage in more “targeted” behaviors when there is a “fly” in the urinal. Photo “Aim at the Fly” by Thomas Quine (quinet), used courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons Licensing.

Financial decisions can also benefit from a nudge in the desired direction. International research from the United States, Chile, Mexico, and Sweden has shown that when employees are automatically enrolled in savings plans, including retirement plans, they are much more likely to save than when they have to “opt-in” to a savings plan (Beshears, Choi, Laibson, & Madrian, 2006). Along similar lines, the state of Washington was faced with a serious budget crisis and was going to have to close many state parks. What did they do to fund the parks so that they could remain open? You probably guessed that they changed a default. In this example, drivers had been given a choice to donate $5 for the parks when they renewed their license. Under the new plan, drivers would have to decide NOT to donate $5 when they renewed their license (Thaler & Sunstein 2011). Defaults offer the course of least resistance and it seems that is a path that most of us prefer. The research is clear—defaults matter. Seemingly small changes in the way choices are presented can have a huge effect on what people decide to do.

Figure 8.3 Rates of organ donations for countries in the European Union. From Johnson & Goldstein (2003), Science. Reprinted with permission from AAAS.

Evaluating Consequences

Murphy’s Law: Anything that can go wrong, will.

Comment on Murphy’s Law: Murphy was an optimist.

If you return to Figure 8.1, you will see that evaluation is done repeatedly as new alternatives are generated, the decision is phrased differently, and the consequences of alternatives are considered. Decision making always involves uncertainty because we are thinking about the way different actions will have some future effect. The decisions that we make have implications for the future, and the future inherently involves unknowns. For this reason, the principles involved in assessing likelihood and uncertainty that were presented in Chapter 7 are an integral part of the decision-making process.

Research on how people typically deal with uncertainty has shown that the usual response is to ignore it, which is probably why so many people accept default options. Although doing nothing may reduce the immediate complexity of a decision, it is often a maladaptive procedure that could lead to catastrophic results. It is possible to reduce the number of unknowns in any situation. This will almost always involve some work by the decision-maker, but if the decision is an important one, it will be time well spent. Let’s consider a common example. Most of us will purchase several automobiles in our lifetimes. For a majority of Americans, this will represent the second largest expenditure that they will make, exceeded only by a home purchase. The quality of this decision can be improved with a little research. You can determine which automobile variables are important to you and gather relevant data about each car you are considering for possible purchase.

Almost any decision can be improved with a little research that would reduce the uncertainty. For example, if you are uncertain about the safety of genetically-altered foods, an afternoon at the library reading both pro and con materials, with benefits and cost information, respectively, should allow you to make a much more informed decision about this important issue.

Assessing Desirable and Undesirable Consequences

We can understand judgment as the quality of analysis, reflection, and ultimately insight that informs the making of politically consequential framing decisions.

—Jonathan Renshon (1992, p. 481–482)

The decision-maker must always be aware of the risks and benefits associated with taking or not taking a particular course of action. The way consequences are evaluated will depend on the context. For example, the consequences of not taking an umbrella will be greater if you are heading off for a business meeting where showing up dry is important than if you are taking the dog for a walk and then returning home.

If you live in an apartment near a college campus, you are well aware of the “joys” associated with apartment hunting. Rental units are often in short supply in college communities and are priced in a range that strains the typical student’s budget. Students may find themselves considering an apartment that lacks the amenities they were hoping for at a price that is really above their income. The risk associated with turning the apartment down is that they might not find another apartment within walking distance to the college campus. The risks associated with renting the apartment must also be considered. What if they find that they really cannot afford to keep up the monthly rental payments? The decision-maker has to decide which risk is greater and the likelihood of each occurring. Obviously, both risks need to be assessed very carefully and additional alternatives considered. Perhaps a cheaper apartment can be found in another section of town with good public transportation to campus, or perhaps a roommate can be found to share the rent.

A poignant example of failure to assess risks adequately can be found in an analysis of the United States’ military actions just prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Admiral Kimmel, Commander-in-Chief of Naval Operations in the Pacific, had received several warnings from Washington that a Japanese attack in the Southwest was possible. He decided to downplay the probability of an attack on Pearl Harbor because he believed that other naval sites were more likely targets. Quite by accident, and almost an hour before the attack, two army privates spotted on a radar screen large numbers of unidentified aircraft flying towards Pearl Harbor. Realizing that these could be Japanese bomber planes, they reported the presence of the unidentified aircraft to the Army’s radar center.

Let’s consider the plight of the officer on duty at the radar center. The United States was not at war with Japan. He had never received the recent warning that a Japanese attack was imminent. He had to decide whether the unidentified objects on the radar screen belonged to the United States or Japan. There were costs and risks associated with either choice. If he had erroneously decided that they were Japanese planes, he would have been responsible for recalling personal “leaves” for large numbers of servicemen and women and creating havoc and panic on the military base. There were also large financial costs involved in preparing for anti-aircraft maneuvers. Because he assessed the possibility of a Japanese attack to be low, he told the two privates to forget about the objects detected by radar. He decided that they were probably the Army B-17s that were expected to arrive some time that day. With the unfortunate benefit of hindsight, it is clear that he failed to assess adequately the risks associated with each decision. The result was the worst naval disaster in United States history with over 2,000 lives lost. Even though he believed that an attack was unlikely (wishful thinking), he should have realized that the risks were too great to justify his decision. Decisions made under extreme risks need careful scrutiny and not an off-hand dismissal. In this case, the risks associated with deciding that the planes belonged to the United States were many times less than those associated with the decision that they were Japanese bombers.

Research has shown that the Pearl Harbor scenario is not unusual. Whenever extreme risk is associated with a course of action, there is a tendency to minimize the unfavorable consequences (Janis & Mann, 1977). This is sometimes called biased discounting—the bias or predilection to discount or reduce perceived risk or its probability. It often operates along with wishful thinking, which causes the decision-maker to assess the probability of a desirable outcome too high, the failure to seek disconfirming evidence, which is the tendency to ignore evidence that would not support your favored hypothesis, and overconfidence in the quality of the decision that was made. These tendencies, taken together, allowed the radar officer to bolster his decision to ignore the unidentified objects by rationalizing either that even if they were Japanese bomber planes, they probably would not do much damage, or it was extremely unlikely that they were Japanese aircraft. A more recent example in which the failure to consider the consequences of certain decision alternatives can be seen in an analysis of the Gulf War that involved the United States, Iraq, and Kuwait. The researcher who conducted the Gulf War analysis found many similarities to the decisions that were made at Pearl Harbor (Renshon, 1992).

When making decisions, many people prefer risks associated from not acting to the risks associated with taking action. The bias or preference for inaction is known as omission bias (Baron, 1994). Consider the decision to vaccinate your child against some dread disease. Many parents will decide NOT to vaccinate their children even when the risk of serious illness or death from the vaccine is extremely small and the risk of getting a serious disease or dying is many times higher if the child is not vaccinated. Many people prefer the harm done by inaction (not getting a flu vaccine, for example) to possible harm from action (e.g., getting a flu vaccine), even when the likelihood of a negative effect is less with an action than with inaction (daCosta DiBonaventura & Chapman, 2008).

Elimination by Aspects

Let’s return to the earlier problem of deciding which automobile to buy. With so many automobiles on the market, where do you begin? Most people begin a decision-making processes of this sort with a strategy known as elimination by aspects, although few people know it by this name (Tversky, 1972). An individual who is concerned about unemployment in the U.S. car industry would begin by eliminating cars that are not manufactured in the United States. In this instance, the aspect under consideration is the place in which the automobile is manufactured. At this point, most people will decide which features (or aspects) of automobiles are important to them. Suppose that you are on a limited budget so that cost is an important feature to you. You would probably determine the cost of various models of Fords, Chevrolets, and other U.S. autos. Models that cost more than your price ceiling would be eliminated.

Let’s suppose further that frequency of repair is another important variable. Of course, no one can tell you how frequently the car you choose will need repair, but you can reduce some of the uncertainty associated with this variable by finding out how often other models similar to the ones you are considering have needed repair in the past. This information is available in consumer periodicals in every library. If some of the models that you are still considering are judged as “worse than average” on the frequency of repairs, then presumably these would be eliminated from further consideration. The elimination by aspects strategy would be recycled repeatedly until the decision-maker is left with a few possible models from which to choose. Typically, small and seemingly insignificant differences will come into play to complete the process—for example, “I’m tired of shopping,” or “Let’s just take this one,” or “The dealer will include at no extra cost furry dice to hang from the rear view mirror if I buy this model,” or “I can drive this one home today.” The use of small and relatively inconsequential factors to close the decision is an example of mindlessness, a topic that was discussed earlier in this book. Most consumers are not aware that something as “small” as free fuzzy dice tilts the balance of what had been a prudent process.

The method of elimination by aspects can be used in many contexts. Political candidates, for example, can be thought of as choices that vary along several criteria. If you decide that the issues that are important to you include a strong military defense, reduction of taxes, and school prayer, then you could rank each of these candidates along these aspects and eliminate the candidates who do not share your views. You would have to determine which of these aspects is most important if you find that none of the candidates shares all of your views about these important issues. Elimination by aspects is “fast and frugal” reasoning (Gigenzer, Todd, & the ABC Research Group, 1999; Gigenzer & Goldstein, 1996). It is one of several “short-cuts” in reasoning where the decision-maker does not carefully weigh a large amount of data, but relies instead on a quicker (and some would say “dirtier”) method of reaching a decision. It is much faster than the worksheet method that is presented below, and it works well when there are time constraints or when the decision does not warrant the extensive work of a worksheet.

Preparing a Worksheet

The time is ripe for a major national and international effort to include thinking and decision making in school curricula.

—Jonathan Baron and Rex V. Brown (1991, p. 6)

We have clear evidence that decision making biases do not go away just by telling people not to make them, but decision making can be improved with effective training programs (e.g., Kylesten & Nahlinder, 2011). Researchers have found that the best way to make an important decision involves the preparation and utilization of a decision worksheet. The purpose of a worksheet is to optimize decision making. Psychologists who study optimization compare the actual decision made by a person to a theoretical “ideal” decision to see how similar they are. Proponents of the worksheet procedure believe that it will yield optimal (best) decisions. Although there are several variations on the exact format that a worksheet can take, they are similar in their essential aspects. Worksheets require framing the decision in a clear and concise way, listing many possible alternatives that would achieve a desired goal, listing the relevant considerations that will be affected by the decision, determining the relative importance of each consideration, and mathematically calculating a decision. The end product of the worksheet procedure is a single numerical summary of each possible solution or alternative. In theory, the alternative with the highest number of points emerges as the best decision, but more usually, the careful consideration of alternatives and their probabilities and value to the decision-maker leads to a decision before the entire process is completed because it helps to clarify values and keeps the decision-maker focused on the task.

Most important problems are multifaceted, with several different ways of framing the decision and many alternatives to choose from, each with unique advantages and disadvantages. One of the benefits of a pencil and paper decision-making procedure is that it permits us to deal with more variables than our immediate processing ability would allow. If you have already read the chapter on utilizing memory, you will recall (I hope) that working memory is limited in the number of pieces of information it can deal with at one time. A worksheet can be especially useful when the decision involves a large number of variables with complex relationships.

Let’s consider the worksheet procedure with a realistic example for most college students: “What will I do after graduation?” A hypothetical student, Evan, has several post-graduation opportunities. He is contemplating the following: (1) a job in a large fashionable department store where he will train to be a buyer; (2) a teaching position in an inner-city school, probably a 5th or 6th grade class; (3) a graduate school degree in business administration; (4) a law school degree; and (5) a year off to “bum around” Europe. A decision-making worksheet will be very important in helping him choose the best alternative. Notice that I did not say “correct” alternative because there are many possible good alternatives for real life, complex decisions.

Framing the Decision

It is critical to be cognizant of the frame of a decision and to consider alternative perspectives.

—Mark D. Rogerson, Michael C. Gottlieb, Mitchell N. Handelsman, Samuel Knapp, and Jeffrey Younggren (2011, p. 617)

The first step in making a sound decision is the realization that a decision needs to be made. A decision-making worksheet begins with a succinct statement of the problem that will also help to narrow it. Thus, the problem for Evan becomes “What will I do after graduation that will lead to a successful career?” If Evan words his decision this way, he has already decided that his decision will involve long-range goals and not immediate ones. It is important to be clear about this distinction because most often, long-range goals will involve a different decision than short-range ones. Thus, the options of attending graduate or law school are really statements about working in business or as a lawyer and not decisions about school per se.

The importance of this first step cannot be overemphasized. The entire decision-making process depends on the way the problem is defined. If Evan had posed the problem as “How can I best earn a good living?”, he would find that the process would focus on monetary considerations. Similarly, the process would change if he posed the problem as, “Should I go to graduate school?” Research with business managers has shown that the ability to redefine business problems is an important characteristic of good decision making in management (Merron, Fisher, & Torbert, 1987). The way the decision is framed will determine the alternatives that are generated and the way they are evaluated. This is an important point. If you are worried about world hunger, you could frame the decision about what to do about it several ways: How can we produce enough food to feed all the people in the world? How can we adjust the world population so that it does not exceed the food supply? How can we move food from wealthy countries to poor ones? How can we develop nonfood alternatives that are nutritious? Each of these decisions will suggest different alternatives.

Similarly, be mindful of the way others have framed decisions for you. The media may adhere to all guidelines of fairness and still present decisions in ways that limit broader considerations. For example, I served as a juror on a complex trial where the attorney for the defense framed the question for the jury as “Why should you believe the alleged victim?” By contrast, the attorney for the prosecution framed the question for the jury as “Is there sufficient evidence that the defendant committed the alleged crime?” Each of these “decision frames” led to the consideration of different types of evidence. The jury had to be aware of the differences in framing and attempt to see the decision about guilt or innocence from several different perspectives as they conducted their deliberations.

A worksheet procedure can have many important applications for social problems. Consider the contemporary problem of violence, which is filled with numerous decision points. It seems that it should be possible to teach aggressive children and adults to reframe their problems in ways that suggest nonviolent alternatives. For example, instead of asking, “How can I get even with a classmate?”, the child could be trained to ask, “How can I improve a bad situation?” Perhaps a thoughtful, creative reader will devise an educational program that teaches children, and perhaps even politicians, to reframe decisions so that nonaggressive alternatives are generated.

Generating the Alternatives

The next step is to write out in separate columns across the top of the worksheet all possible alternatives that could solve the problem. You will need a large sheet of ruled paper or a computerized spread sheet because it would make no sense to cut the worksheet process short because you ran out of space on your paper. It is important that you do not evaluate the alternatives at this stage; however, this is not the place for fiction either. If you are tone deaf, this is not the time to fantasize about a career in the opera. Allow room for two columns under each alterative that will be used later for calculations. Research on decision making by physicians found that one of the most common errors was “premature closure,” the tendency to stop thinking about alternative diagnoses as soon as a likely diagnosis was found (Norman & Eva, 2010). Remember, you cannot select an alternative that you never considered.

Thus far, Evan’s worksheet would look something like this:

Table 8.1: What Will I Do After College That Will Lead to a Successful Career?

Evan notices while drawing up his worksheet that these alternatives are not all mutually exclusive. There is no reason why he cannot decide to travel around Europe for a year and then select a career goal; besides, a vacation in Europe is not a long-range plan, and the decision currently being made is for life career goals. He decides at this point to erase the fifth alternative because it seems to require a separate decision from the other four. He also remembers at this point that his father always hoped that Evan would want to run the family-owned lumber business after his graduation from college. Although this is not an appealing idea to Evan, he substitutes it as an additional choice because the rules for this step of the process do not allow for evaluation.

Listing the Considerations

The decision Evan makes will have multiple effects. His feelings about making a personal contribution to society, his income and his future life style, his parents’ and friends’ opinions of him, the quality of his workday, and many other variables are at stake. If Evan were married and had children, the impact of each decision on his spouse and children would also need to be considered. At this point, Evan should cover the alternatives and list on the left-hand side of his worksheet the considerations or variables that will be affected by his decision. The worksheet would now look like this. (See Table 8.2.)

Table 8.2: What Will I Do After College That Will Lead to a Successful Career?

Before proceeding, Evan should now put the worksheet away and mull over the way the decision was framed and the alternatives and the considerations that he listed. Often people find that in the course of worksheet preparation, they think of new alternatives and discover which considerations are important to them. It is also a good idea to ask other people you trust if they can think of additional alternatives and considerations. Considerations and alternatives that are not listed on the worksheet will not be considered, so it is extremely important to list all the relevant alternatives and considerations. Do not cut this part of the decision-making process short. It is important.

Be sure, however, that you do not let other people make the decision for you. Suppose that Evan’s friend suggests that Evan seriously pursue his interest in music and become a jazz musician. In addition, Evan thinks up several additional considerations, which he lists on his worksheet. He also decides that as he is planning for his future, he should realistically consider his chances for success at each alternative. (See Table 8.3.)

Table 8.3: What Will I Do After College That Will Lead to a Successful Career?

Listing all relevant considerations is an important part of the worksheet process. Janis and Mann (1977) believe that poor decisions often result from failures to think through all of the relevant considerations. They suggest that considerations be listed under four categories—gains and losses for self, gains and losses for significant others, self-approval and disapproval, and social approval and disapproval to avoid overlooking important considerations.

Weighing the Considerations

Balancing the pros and the cons is certainly among the most intuitive approaches that one might take to decision making. It was already at the core of Benjamin Franklin’s ‘moral algebra’ (explained in his famous 1772 letter to Joseph Priestley) and it has certainly not fallen from grace since then.

—Jean-François Bonnefon, Didier Dubois, Hélène Fargier, and Sylvie Leblois (2008, p. 71)

It is almost always true that the considerations are not equally important to the decision-maker and therefore need to be weighed accordingly. A five-point scale in which 1 = of slight importance, 5 = of great importance, and the numbers 2, 3, 4 reflect gradations of importance between these end points can be used to quantify the relative importance of each consideration. Weighing considerations is a personal matter. It is likely that each of us would assign weights somewhat differently. If Evan felt that his desire to help society was moderately important to him, he would rate it a “3.” Similarly, if he believed that income was more than moderately important to him, but less than “of great importance” he would rate it a “4.” The appropriate weights are placed alongside each consideration.

After assigning numbers (the weights) to each consideration, you should stop to survey the weights. If Evan rated “friend’s opinions” with a larger number than “parents’ opinions,” this reflects how he feels about their relative opinions. This is a good way to clarify which considerations are most important to you. It is a good way to consider your own values. It is not unusual to find that the process ends here because the decision-maker realizes which alternatives are important and does not need to complete the process.

Weighing the Alternatives

Now is the time to think carefully about each alternative and determine how well each satisfies the considerations listed. The alternatives will be weighed using the numbers –2, –1, 0, +1, and +2. A positive number indicates that it is favorable or “pro” the consideration, with +2 indicating that it is highly favorable, and +1 indicating that it is somewhat favorable. A negative number will be used if an alternative is incompatible with or “con” a consideration, with –2 indicating that it is highly incompatible, and –1 indicating that it is somewhat incompatible. Zero will be used when an alternative is neither favorable nor unfavorable to a consideration.

We will use Evan’s worksheet to demonstrate how to weigh alternatives. First, Evan has to contemplate how becoming a department store buyer will satisfy his desire to help society. Certainly it will not hurt society, but it probably will not help it either. Evan believes that while it may create additional jobs in related industries (fashion, sewing, etc.), this is not really what he had in mind when he thought about helping society; therefore, he rates it a zero on this consideration. This number is placed under “Department Store Buyer” in the left hand column on the first row. Subsequent ratings will be placed directly below this number. If he does eventually become a buyer for a large department store, he probably will earn a satisfactory income. He certainly will not be rich, but it will be enough money to allow him to live comfortably; therefore, he gives it a +1. Both his parents and friends will consider it to be a moderately good job, so he rates it a +1 on both these considerations. He believes that it should be very interesting work and rates it a +2 on “interest in the work.” It should be a moderately prestigious occupation and thus rates a +1 in this category. Unfortunately, it probably will not offer much employment security because department store sales are tied to the economy, which seems to fluctuate erratically; he therefore rates it –1 on “employment security.” A department store buyer is required to work a 40-hour or more work week with only a few weeks a year for vacation; he thus rates it a –2 on vacation and free time. He notes that he is moderately likely to succeed as a department store buyer, so he rates it +1 on this consideration.

It is usually necessary to gather more information at this stage of the decision-making process. Evan may need to check various income web sites to find out what the median salary is for school teachers. He also might seek the advice of his college advisor to determine if he has the math skills needed to succeed in business administration. We know that the way alternatives are evaluated is influenced by feelings, which in this case, is perfectly rational because the choice is a personal one, and Evan’s feelings about the alternatives should be part of the decision-making process.

Table 8.4: What Will I Do After College That Will Lead to a Successful Career?

Each alternative is rated in a similar manner by thinking how well it satisfies the objectives of each consideration. When he completed weighing the alternatives, Evan’s worksheet looked like this. (See Table 8.4.)

Calculating a Decision

If you have carefully followed the worksheet procedure this far, you have realized that it requires numerous decisions before even coming close to yielding the one you want to make. By now, Evan has decided what type of decision he is making (long-range), has listed all the alternatives and all the considerations that he believes to be necessary, and has decided how important each consideration is to him and how well each alternative satisfies the objectives of each consideration.

There are three different strategies for calculating a decision at this point. They are overall assessment, dimensional comparison, and the “2/3 Ideal Rule.” Each utilizes a different criterion for selecting the best decision from a worksheet.

Overall Assessment

An overall assessment of the various weights is obtained by determining how well each alternative satisfies the considerations taken as a whole or overall. This is calculated by multiplying the weight previously assigned for each consideration by the value assigned to how well an alternative satisfies that consideration. For example, Evan has rated his desire to help society a “3” and the department store buyer alternative a “0” on this consideration. The first cell of the worksheet is 3 × 0 = 0. This result, 0, is placed in the right-hand column under “department store buyer.” Continuing down to the next consideration, we see that Evan rated income as “4” and the department store buyer alternative “+1” on income. Because 4 × 1 = 4, he would place a “4” in the right hand-column below department store buyer and next to “income.” This procedure is repeated for each alternative. The right hand-column for each alternative is then added yielding a total score for each alternative. This procedure is demonstrated in Table 8.5.

Perusal of the worksheet will now show that based on an overall assessment, the alternative with the highest total score is “Teacher—Inner-City School.” You will also notice that the alternative to become a department store buyer obtained a fairly high score that was close to a winning alternative. Thus far, it seems that Evan should seriously be thinking about a career as a teacher, although his close second is department store buyer.

Table 8.5: What Will I Do After College That Will Lead to a Successful Career?

Dimensional Comparison

In a dimensional comparison strategy, each consideration (the “dimensions”) is examined to find which alternative has the highest score. For example, if “Desire to help society” is examined, you will see that “Teacher—Inner-City School” had the highest rating among all the other alternatives; therefore, it would “win” on this consideration and get one point. Looking at “Income,” you will see that both “Graduate School—Business” and “Law School” were assigned +2 on this dimension. In the event of ties, each of the winning tied alternative is awarded one point. If each consideration is examined in a similar manner, the following number of considerations won for each alternative will result:

As seen above, the alternative “Teacher, Inner-City School” scored highest among the alternatives on four considerations. Thus, the results of the dimensional comparison strategy agree with the overall assessment results. Notice that both “Law School” and “Run Family Lumber Business” won three considerations each, yet scored fairly low on the overall assessment. Several prominent researchers believe that this is the best method for making decisions and that weighting each consideration is unnecessary (Gigerenzer, 2008). The method of weighting considerations is time consuming and many people will not go to that much work for decisions that are not critically important. For most people, the longer methods shown here, with various weighting, would only be used for life’s most important decisions (perhaps to choose between different treatments for cancer or to decide whether to make life-changing decisions). Even if you never or rarely use the longer method of weighting, it is good to know that you can come back and use this method if you ever need or want to.

2/3 Ideal Rule

The “2/3 Ideal Rule” was suggested by Carkhuff (1973). It requires the decision-maker to calculate an overall assessment total for a perfect or ideal alternative. If an ideal alternative were added to Evan’s worksheet, it would rate +2 on each consideration since it would be highly favorable to each consideration. A total overall score for an ideal alternative can be arrived at by adding all of the consideration weights and multiplying the total by 2 as seen below:

3 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 5 = 28

28 × 2 = 56

The reasoning behind the “2/3 Ideal Rule” is that a best alternative may not be good enough if it fails to measure up to 2/3 of an ideal solution. Thus, according to this rule, a minimally acceptable alternative would score an overall 37.5 (2/3 × 56 = 37.5). If you turn back to the completed worksheet, you will see that the highest total was for the teacher alternative and it rated, by the overall assessment method, a 20 (considerably less than the 37.5 required by this rule). Evan has several choices at this point. He can disregard the “2/3 Ideal Rule” (which is likely if he is pleased with the decision to become a teacher), or he can expand and recycle the process by generating additional considerations and alternatives until he reaches a consensus with all three calculating procedures.

The “2/3 Ideal Rule” is based on the idea that some alternatives are “good enough,” while others are not. Searching for alternatives that are good enough is called satisficing (Schwartz, Ben-Haim, & Dasco, 2011; Simon, 1956), which was described in an earlier chapter. It refers to terminating the decision-making process when an alternative that is “good enough” to satisfy most of the important considerations is found. The decision-making process cannot go on forever, so at some point, the decision-maker will have to decide that one alternative is “good enough.” The problem really is when to terminate the process, and there are no simple answers to this question. Important decisions like the one considered in this example should be given the time and effort they deserve. Often, better decisions are possible if the decision-maker would invest more time and effort into generating alternatives and listing considerations.

The Problem with Numbers

One problem in using worksheet procedures to make decisions is the reliance on subjective estimates—estimates of the probability of success, estimates of the importance of consideration, and estimates of the extent to which an alternative is favorable or unfavorable for a consideration. Although a large table of numbers can look very scientific, the end result is only as good as the numbers that go into the calculations. Sometimes, small differences in how you assess probabilities or values can change the outcome. Most people can only give a rough evaluation of how strong a cost or benefit is for a decision and find it difficult to assign numerical values (Bonnefon, Dubois, Fargier, & Leblois, 2008). So, it is important that you think about the worksheet procedure as an aid or “decision making helper,” not an absolute determinant of what you do. It should help you to clarify your values, force you to think systematically about multiple variables, and aid in the generation of additional possible alternatives. Ideally, the decision will become clear as you work on the worksheet, so that it is more of a process for making a decision than an absolute determinant of what you decide.

Dilemmas in Decision Making

The decision-maker will often encounter dilemmas in calculating a decision. It is not unusual for two or more alternatives to have exactly the same high score or for one alternative to obtain the highest total with the overall assessment and a different one with the dimensional comparison. This stalemate can always be remedied by generating additional considerations and repeating the process until an alternative emerges as best. It is also possible to combine two or more alternatives. For example, Evan could become a buyer in a department store and volunteer to tutor children on weekends. This would allow him to realize his desire to help society while maintaining the benefits of the buyer alternative. Sometimes the decision-maker will abandon the worksheet before it is completed because the process helped to clarify the issues and led directly to a decision without the calculations.

Certainly, the worksheet procedure requires a great deal of work, as its name implies. You might be wondering if there is any evidence to suggest that it is worth the extra effort—that it actually leads to better decisions. Yes, there is. Mann (1972) randomly selected 30 high school seniors (15 females and 15 males) from a college preparatory program to participate in an experimental investigation of the worksheet procedure. He taught them how to prepare a worksheet that would help them make decisions about college. The procedure he used was similar to the one presented here, but not identical to it. He also employed a “control group” of 20 students who were not taught the worksheet procedure. Mann contacted the students approximately six weeks after they notified the colleges about their decision concerning which college they planned to attend. The group that had received worksheet training (the experimental group) had less post-decision stress and anxiety and was happier about the decisions they made than the control group. Mann also reported that they had considered possible unfavorable consequences of their decision more carefully than the control group. Thus, if something does go wrong, they will more likely be prepared for it than those in the group without worksheet training.

One of the benefits of the worksheet procedure is that it allows people to feel more confident about difficult decisions and better prepared for decision-making situations because they are required to evaluate alternatives in a systematic manner.

Post-Decision Commitment and Evaluation

To begin with it was only tentatively that I put forward the views that I have developed … but in the course of time they have gained such a hold upon me that I can no longer think in any other way.”

—Sigmund Freud (1856–1939)

The decision-making process does not end with the decision. Once a course of action has been selected, the decision-maker must make detailed plans to carry it out and needs to remain committed to the decision. However, if a major change occurs in the evaluation of the consideration, then the process should be repeated. For example, if Evan were unexpectedly offered a lucrative contract to become a jazz musician, he would be wise to reconsider this alternative. Success at this alternative would now seem much more likely and a large income would be assured. Decision making is not a static process. Our major life decisions will have to be reconsidered whenever a major variable changes.

Cognitive Dissonance

Because smoking is a health-damaging behavior, smokers must use dissonance-reducing strategies … in order to maintain their behavior.

—Julia Kneer, Sabine Glock, and Diana Rieger, (2012, p. 81).

Most of the time, people are pleased with their decisions. This finding has been of considerable interest to research psychologists. Leon Festinger (1964), a famous research psychologist, proposed his theory of cognitive dissonance to explain this phenomenon. It is based on the idea that people like their beliefs, attitudes, and actions to be consistent, and when they are not consistent, an unpleasant internal state arises—dissonance. Dissonance needs to be reduced. If you believe that it is wrong to smoke marijuana and you attend a party where you smoke marijuana, you will feel uncomfortable because your actions and beliefs are not in agreement. They are not consistent with each other. In order to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, which is an unpleasant internal state, you will generally change your beliefs and conclude that you did the right thing.

The theory of cognitive dissonance only applies when a conscious decision has been made. If you were coerced in some way, there would be no dissonance. Suppose that you were required to write an essay on some topic that you are opposed to, like the inferiority of a racial or ethnic group, or why drugs should be available to elementary school children. If you were coerced into doing this, there would be no need to change your attitudes to keep them consistent with this behavior. However, if you voluntarily decided to write such an essay, then cognitive dissonance theory would predict a change in your attitude toward the position you took in the essay. This is a major theory in social psychology that explains why people are usually satisfied with the decisions they make. It is easy to see how it contributes to the unwarranted confidence that most people have in their decisions.

Foot-in-the-Door

Cognitive dissonance can be used to understand a common persuasive technique known as the foot-in-the-door. The phrase comes from common parlance among door-to-door salespeople who claimed that they could make a sale if only they could get a “foot-in-the-door”—get the perspective customer to allow the salespeople to make their sales pitch. Research on the use of this technique shows that if people agree to a small request—like signing a petition in favor of safe driving—later, they are more likely to agree to a larger request—like donating money to a safe driving campaign (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom, 1995). People are more willing to agree to an inconvenient or costly request when it follows a smaller or less costly request that is consistent with the larger one. It seems that many people reason that they must really care about the issue or topic because they already showed their support with a smaller action.

Perspective Taking

Perspective-taking is an essential part of interacting with the world: we need to be able to see things from others’ perspectives in order to understand them and interact with them. … Indeed, so poorly trained are we at actually taking someone else’s point of view that when we are explicitly requested to do so, we still proceed from an egocentric place.

—Maria Konnikova (2011, paras. 8–9)

Often, the decisions that we make involve other people, and often those other people want different outcomes than we do and have different values from our own. Any time you enter into a negotiation or politicians from different parties attempt to pass legislation, the two parties have different interests. It is helpful to “see” the issue from the other side’s perspective. This skill could go a long way toward reducing violence and hostilities and allowing what Fisher, Ury, and Patton (2011) call “Getting to yes.” Also, successful negotiations depend on getting the other side to make decisions that you want. Several studies have documented the advantages of taking the perspective of the other side when at the bargaining table: “perspective taking increased individuals’ ability to discover hidden agreements and to both create and claim resources” that led to better decisions (Galinsky, Maddux, Gilin, & White, 2008). The best way to get to that position is to understand what is important to the other side—it may be money, but it could also be time, prestige, or something that has sentimental value.

Hindsight and Forethought

Hindsight can sometimes see the past clearly—with 20/20 vision.

—9/11 Commission, 2004, cited in Bernstein, Erdfelder, Meltzoff, Peria, & Loftus, 2011, p. 3,788)

The term hindsight was discussed in earlier chapters. After a decision has been made and the relevant events occur, well meaning friends will often tell you they could have predicted the consequences of your decision. If you have ever been divorced (or have exchanged confidences with someone who has), there were probably several acquaintances who claimed to have known all along that, “he (or she) was no good for you.” Events appear different with the benefit of hindsight. Forethought is the opposite of hindsight. There should be fewer unfortunate consequences if decisions are carefully thought out before they are made.

In experimental investigations of hindsight, most participants erroneously believed that they could have predicted the consequences of historical and personal decisions before they occurred. In our earlier analysis of the Pearl Harbor disaster, it seemed obvious that the only possible decision was to assume that the aircraft belonged to the Japanese. It should be remembered that we analyzed the disaster with the full knowledge of the ensuing events. Hindsight occurs only when poor or wrong decisions have been made. It is seldom that good decisions are analyzed after the fact. Forethought and hindsight are qualitatively different. At the time of the decision (forethought) there is doubt and deliberation, but following the unfavorable consequences of the decision (hindsight) there is often a great sense of certainty that the future should have been predicted more accurately.

Hindsight is of little value in the decision-making process. It distorts our memory for events that occurred at the time of the decision so that the actual consequence seems to have been a “forgone conclusion.” Thus, it may be difficult to learn from our mistakes. Retrospective (after the fact) review, on the other hand, can be a valuable aid in improving future decisions. Unlike hindsight, it does not involve a faulty reconstruction of the information available at the time of the decision so that the consequence appears obvious.

Chapter Summary

• Decision making is an active process that begins with a clear definition of the decision and a set of alternative solutions from which to choose.

• One way to improve on the way in which decisions are made is to frame the decision in several ways. Additional alternatives can emerge by changing the focus of what is being decided on.

• Few people ever receive formal instruction in thinking skills, and even trained professionals commit common decision-making fallacies. Research has shown that with training, people make better decisions.

• A common error in decision making is the failure to seek disconfirming evidence. Confirmation bias is a persistent problem when people make decisions.

• One problem with group decision making is that groups tend to be overconfident in collective decisions, which causes them to disregard information that suggests that other decisions may be better.

• People often rely on heuristics or “rules of thumb” to help them make decisions. The availability heuristic or reliance on events that are readily recalled is a common decision-making heuristic. When time is limited or the decision does not merit a large investment of time or effort, there are many heuristics (thinking shortcuts) that often work quite well.

• Because of the widespread but erroneous belief that the laws of chance are self-correcting, many people believe that “random-looking” sequences of outcomes are more probable outcomes of a random process than orderly sequences of outcomes.

• Unwarranted optimism can also lead to poor decisions because it prevents realistic assessment of both desirable and undesirable consequences of a decision.

• People often fall prey to entrapment. They find it difficult to reverse their decision after having invested large amounts of time or money.

• Decisions are often biased by emotional states like psychological reactance (the resistance to a loss of freedom), mood, and liking induced by reciprocity and familiarity.

• There are unconscious influences on how we decide. The best we can do to guard against their influence is to be mindful and consider how other influences may be affecting the decisions people make.

• The way a situation is crafted can “nudge” people to make certain decisions. Across a wide variety of topics, most people select the default option instead of taking action.

• Risky decisions require special care. There is often a tendency to downplay the likelihood of a disastrous outcome.

• When the alternatives vary along several dimensions, decisions are sometimes made by eliminating alternatives until only one or two choices remain.

• Important decisions can be optimized by preparing a worksheet in which alternatives and considerations are listed and weighed in a table format.

• People are most often satisfied with the decisions that they make, possibly because cognitive dissonance works to maintain consistency between actions and beliefs, and because they cannot think of any reason why they might be wrong. Thus, we reason that if we decided on a course of action, it must have been the best one.

• After the consequences of a decision have occurred, there is a great sense of certainty that the consequences should have been obvious. Hindsight is a ubiquitous phenomenon that distorts how we perceive the information that was available before the decision was made.

• There is an important distinction between a good decision that is based on the information that is available when the decision is being made and its outcomes. Sometimes, good decisions will have undesirable outcomes because of the inherent uncertainty in most important decisions.

The following skills for making decisions were presented in this chapter. Review each skill and be sure that you understand how and when to use each one:

• listing alternatives and considering the cost and benefits of each

• reframing the decision so as to consider different types of alternatives

• recognizing the need to seek disconfirming evidence and deliberately seeking disconfirming evidence

• understanding the way that information that is readily recalled or information that appears representative of a random process can influence how decisions are made

• considering how overly optimistic assessments bias the selection of alternatives

• recognizing arguments that are based on entrapment and considering why the costs have been high

• being mindful of the way liking and other emotional states can affect the evaluation of alternatives

• evaluating positive assessments of alternatives that are based on reciprocity or familiarity

• seeking information to reduce uncertainty when making risky decisions

• preparing a decision-making worksheet for important decisions

• understanding the distinction between the quality of a decision and its outcome

• understanding the way emotional states like reactance and anger can affect the way we evaluate alternatives and behaving in ways that minimize their effects

• recognizing that hindsight analysis of a decision is usually biased and of limited value.

Terms to Know

Check your understanding of the concepts presented in this chapter by reviewing their definitions. If you find that you are having difficulty with any term, be sure to reread the section in which it is discussed.

Subjective Utility. The value of a choice to an individual who is a making a decision.

Overconfidence. An unwarranted confidence in the quality of decisions that are being made.

Group Think. The illusion of being invulnerable as part of a group; this illusion results from the pressures for unanimous decisions and the need to squash dissent to maintain group solidarity.

Heuristic. A general “rule of thumb” or strategy that we use to solve problems and make decisions. Although it does not always produce a correct answer, it is usually a helpful aid. Compare with algorithm.

Algorithm. A problem-solving or decision-making procedure that will always yield the solution to a particular problem if it is followed exactly. Compare with heuristic.

Availability Heuristic. A decision-making “rule of thumb” that is used when estimates of frequency or probability are made based on the ease with which instances come to mind; for example, many college students believe that there are more professors in America than farmers because they can think of more professors whom they know than farmers.

Recognition Heuristic. When the level of knowledge is low, people decide that towns, teams, or people whose names they recognize are more likely to have positive outcomes than ones they have never heard of.

Representativeness Heuristic. A decision-making “rule of thumb” in which the determination of a sample’s likelihood is made by noting its similarity to a random process. If it “looks like” a random process, it is judged to be more probable than if it appears orderly or patterned.

Wishful Thinking. People tend to overestimate their chances of success or the likelihood of a desirable outcome.

Entrapment. A situation in which an individual has already invested much money, time, or effort and, therefore, decides to continue in this situation because of the money, time, or effort that has already been invested.

Sunk Cost. Thinking error that occurs when people make decisions based on their prior investments instead of the value of additional resources (e.g., you already spent time or money on something—that investment is gone). Decisions should be based on future costs (e.g., is it worth more time or money?).

Psychological Reactance. Resistance arising from restrictions of freedom. Some people will select a less preferred alternative if they are told that they must select the preferred alternative.

Mere Exposure Effect. Very often, repeated exposure to a stimulus will enhance your liking for it.

Mindlessness. Making decisions with little or no conscious effort.

Cognitive Nudge. When information is arranged in a way that makes some decisions more likely than others.

Biased Discounting. Predilection to discount or reduce the magnitude or probability of risk.

Elimination by Aspects. A decision-making strategy in which choices are sequentially eliminated if they fail to meet one or more considerations.

Optimization. Making the best possible decision in any situation.

Overall Assessment. A method of calculating a decision from a worksheet. The alternative with the highest worksheet total would be selected. Compare with dimensional comparison and “2/3 Ideal Rule.”

Dimensional Comparison. A method for calculating a decision from a worksheet. The alternative that has “won” the greatest number of considerations would be selected. Compare with overall assessment and “2/3 Ideal Rule.”

“2/3 Ideal Rule.” A method for calculating a decision from a worksheet. Only alternatives whose worksheet totals are at least 2/3 as large as the ideal choice would be chosen. Compare with dimensional comparison and overall assessment.

Satisficing. Terminating the decision-making process when an alternative that is “good enough” to satisfy most of the important considerations is found.

Cognitive Dissonance. A theory based on the notion that people want their beliefs, attitudes, and actions to be consistent. When they are not consistent, an unpleasant internal state arises—dissonance—which needs to be reduced. We reduce dissonance by changing our beliefs and attitudes so that they are in accord with our actions.

Foot-in-the-Door. A two-stage persuasive technique. People are more likely to comply with a large request if they first comply with a smaller but related request.

Perspective Taking. “Seeing” what the other side desires and understanding what is important to the other side when negotiating.

Hindsight. Reevaluation of a decision after it has been made and its consequences have occurred, with the belief that the consequences should have been known before the decision was made.