How to Avoid Biases in Decision-Making

There has been an identification of various numbers of biases in the human being judgment and resolution making. Each bias reveals a deviation from the normal regulation of the utility of probability perception. Most conduct study tackles cognitive biases, the faulty mental procedures that consequence to judgments and resolutions that breach the generally accepted normal standards. Equally significant are the motivational biases that comprise conscious or subconscious alterations of verdicts and resolutions due to individual interest, social forces, or institutional environment (Montibeller, & Winterfeldt, 2015). Some resolutions and threats evaluations use the continued existence of these biases to argue for the utilization of modeling and assessment means as these means could correct human being biases and mistakes in resolution making. Nevertheless, specialists and decision-makers need to offer decisions in risk and judgment modeling; thus forecasters should be anxious about biases that might alter the inputs into the very forms that are believed to correct them.

Cognitive biases in resolution creation engross a broad range of variations from what has generally deemed solely balanced decisions and judgments. It is argued that for a distinction among diverse manners in which individuals think, we can accurately distinguish the thinking that is faster (automated thinking) and thinking that is slower (conscious or deliberate thinking). Slow thinking engages proper evaluation of choices and utility principles that are part of rational resolution making (Ehrlinger, Readinger, & Kim, 2016). It is effortful, conscious and specifically helpful for gauging and drawing associations amongst perceptions. The shortcoming to slow or System 2 thinking is that it necessitates availability of time, statistics, as well as inspiration to employ in slow, conscious expression. If each decision made necessitate this stage of processing, a lot of daily activities could be tedious and more time would be required to accomplish activities. Automated or System 1 thinking solves this challenge by permitting for back processing of bulk resolutions that individuals face in their activities. Thinking in System 1 is quick, automatic and frequently more emotionally evaluated to System 2 thinking.

There are nevertheless, consequences to the swiftness and efficiency linked with fast thinking as it necessitates generalization and the neglect of some potentially vital statistics. The most acknowledged type of fast thinking is the utilization of heuristics, or regulations of thumb that permit individuals to make fast estimates of probability or significance. The automated forms of thinking could result in predictable mistakes or biases (Ehrlinger, Readinger, & Kim, 2016). These biases are common or consistent with distinctive cognitive and social performance and fairly contrary, they are frequently inevitable, automatic means in which the brain processes statistics and permit individuals to create better enough options in a sensory-rich atmosphere.

Availability Heuristic 

The availability heuristic suggests that individuals take the ease with which a significance or occurrence comes to mind as enlightening concerning its possibility or frequency. The availability heuristic describes the consequence that individual reasoning and judgment are persuaded by the ease of bringing an impressive to mind (Ehrlinger, Readinger, & Kim, 2016). The availability heuristic most of the time works well when there is general easier thinking of recalling events that are fundamentally more frequent. There is the presence of cognitive bias when the cognitive availability and the actual occurrence of the probability of events are conflicting. It has been identified that availability heuristic as an essential underlying cause of selfish decisions.

Representativeness Heuristic 

Representativeness heuristic is a general myth where individuals determine the likelihood or frequency of an occasion or event grounded on assumptions or past occurrences. The mindset is formed in the thought that individuals need to categorize their lives like the various psychological notions state (Ehrlinger, Readinger, & Kim, 2016). A time when persons cannot cope to fit a specific situation into a definite category, there is continuous endeavors to try and find sense by conveying it to a secondary stage of an already accomplished institutional structure. When individuals utilize categories for making a judgment about an individual, thing or occasion they utilize representativeness heuristics. Employing representativeness heuristics in the course of challenge solving or resolution making could give rise to various misleading notions, which equally could lead to poor resolution making for the individual who falls victim to this manner of thoughts.

The confirmation Heuristic 

Positive Hypotheses Testing or Confirmation Heuristic comprises of the tendency to look for, understand or recall statistics that validate, or in a manner that verifies, a person's preexisting viewpoints or hypotheses while giving less consideration to alternative probabilities (Lockton, 2012). This suggests that circumstances are not perceived objectively. Information is picked out in bits that make individual feel good as they confirm their initial thoughts. Confirmation heuristics could lead to various biases, the confirmation trap, that consist of looking for confirmation statistics and conjunctive or disjunctive events bias where there is an overestimation of the possibility of conjunctive occasions and underestimating of the possibility of disjunctive incidents.

An Example Scenario of Availability Heuristic 

My friend James hears his fellow worker talking about a fun weekend trip she took to Miami. After being carried out by the fascinating events his fellow worker experienced in the trip to Miami, James decided to try the trip. He started searching for a plane ticket and even realized that the prices were very reasonable and thus he ended up booking for a trip to Miami with his spouse in the following month. The night before their departure, his spouse's brother who was usually scared of airborne, asked him what he thought was the chances of their airplane crashing. James did think it was impossible for that to happen; he assessed the situation to be one in a million there was any possibility. But on that instance, he remembered seeing an article on an airplane crash in the newspaper that week; thus he lowered his estimations to one if three hundred. In fact, plane crashes are naturally very rare, but James has never read or seen anything in the media discussing the millions of safe flights that occur each day. Hence his reaction was influenced by the most recent and available happenings that his mind could recall. The reaction could be avoided by taking time as well as taking a pause and asking oneself if they are making choices due to something that recently occurred either to them or around them. As long as individuals understand their personal biases, they would be able to make better choices.

Conclusion 

Humans' judgments are frequently not grounded in optimization functions but on judgment heuristics that are entries to various judgment biases. To be effective, resolution making should account for the features of the stakeholders, resolution makers, and the forecasters as they interact to outline a challenge and produce a solution (Montibeller, & Winterfeldt, 2015). It is a difficult task to make the right resolutions, particularly when there is little consent, support, or proof that judgment is right. Nevertheless, there is proof that the success of resolutions is enhanced by attending to the values and working to lessen the biases that weaken decision-making procedures.

References

Ehrlinger, J., Readinger, W. O., & Kim, B. (2016). Decision-making and cognitive biases. ResearchGate . Retrieved on 10 November 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301662722_Decision-Making_and_Cognitive_Biases

Lockton, D. (2012). Cognitive biases, heuristics and decision making in design for behaviour change. ResearchGate . Retrieved on 10 November 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256029769_Cognitive_Biases_Heuristics_and_Decision-Making_in_Design_for_Behaviour_Change

Montibeller, G., & Winterfeldt, D. V. (2015). Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1111/risa.12360