Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- PART I HISTORY AND FOUNDATIONS OF DECISION ANALYSIS
- PART II STRUCTURING DECISION PROBLEMS
- PART III PROBABILITIES AND BAYES NETS
- PART IV UTILITIES
- PART V RISK ANALYSIS
- PART VI DECISION ANALYSIS IN A BEHAVIORAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
- 18 What Have We Learned from Our Mistakes?
- 19 Decision Conferencing
- 20 Resource Allocation Decisions
- 21 From Decision Analysis to the Decision Organization
- 22 Building Decision Competency in Organizations
- 23 Negotiation Analysis: Between Decisions and Games
- PART VII APPLICATIONS OF DECISION ANALYSIS
- Index
- References
18 - What Have We Learned from Our Mistakes?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- PART I HISTORY AND FOUNDATIONS OF DECISION ANALYSIS
- PART II STRUCTURING DECISION PROBLEMS
- PART III PROBABILITIES AND BAYES NETS
- PART IV UTILITIES
- PART V RISK ANALYSIS
- PART VI DECISION ANALYSIS IN A BEHAVIORAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
- 18 What Have We Learned from Our Mistakes?
- 19 Decision Conferencing
- 20 Resource Allocation Decisions
- 21 From Decision Analysis to the Decision Organization
- 22 Building Decision Competency in Organizations
- 23 Negotiation Analysis: Between Decisions and Games
- PART VII APPLICATIONS OF DECISION ANALYSIS
- Index
- References
Summary
ABSTRACT. The authors discuss the steps involved in good decision making and use those steps to organize results from behavioral decision research. Framing effects, self serving biases, and context effects are a few of the many errors and biases that are presented. The authors also discuss techniques for reducing errors. They conclude by providing examples of human cognitive strengths, while emphasizing the importance of learning from our mistakes.
Good Decision Making
To the lucky few, good decisions come naturally. But to most of us, decisions are difficult, grueling, and sometimes quite painful. The process requires us to make delicate tradeoffs, sort through complex scenarios, hunt for good ideas, estimate the odds of future states, and answer a voice inside that keeps asking, “Is this what I really want?”
Many scholars describe good decision making as a series of interrelated steps. Although there are many ways to categorize steps, most researchers agree that the process includes the following stages:
Define the Problem and Set the Goals
The best way to get what you want is to know what that is. This step could be extremely easy or extremely difficult depending on the problem. Good decision makers ask, “What do I want to achieve? What are my goals and objectives? How will I know if I am successful?”
Gather Information and Identify Options
Important choices require a careful and unbiased search for evidence. Normative theory says that the search for information should continue until the costs outweigh the benefits.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Advances in Decision AnalysisFrom Foundations to Applications, pp. 351 - 374Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
, and (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1986). Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 27, 148–180.Google Scholar
, , , and (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 252–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (2002). Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: Survival and mortality curves. Medical Decision Making, 22, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 41, 258–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1992). Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1975). Fifty years of memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1993). When every relationship is above average: Perceptions and expectations of divorce at the time of marriage. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 439–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2000). Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. Journal of Finance, 55, 773–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1988). Hindsight bias and strategic choice – Some problems in learning from experience. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 628–641.Google Scholar
, , and (2005). The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, W. G., and Simon, H. A. (1973). The mind's eye in chess. In (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press, pp. 215–281.Google Scholar
, and (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1984). Decisions and memory: Differential retrievability of consistent and contradictory evidence. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and (1993). Measuring resource damages with contingent valuation: Tests of validity and reliability. In Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
(1975). Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299.Google Scholar
and (1975). “I knew it would happen”: Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 13, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. (1986). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. In and (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 397–416.Google Scholar
(1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102, 684–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998). Payment depreciation: The behavioral effects of temporally separating payments from consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 160–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). Counterfactual reasoning and accuracy in predictive judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 719–731.Google Scholar
, and (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine, 73, 538–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1981). Anchoring and adjustment in probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19, 120–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribution substitution in intuitive judgment. In , , and (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1970). The utilization of subjective probabilities in production planning. Acta Psychologica, 34, 338–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79, 1277–1284.Google Scholar
, and (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 437–459.Google Scholar
Larrick, R. (2004). Debiasing. In and (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 316–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1977). Managerial myopia: Self-serving biases in organizational planning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1982). Hindsight distortion and the 1980 presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 257–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1988). Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2002). A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1992). Incentives, effort, and the cognitive processes involved in accounting-related judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 30, 249–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (1993). Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, XⅫ, 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1977). A study of the efficacy of diagnostic radiologic procedures: Final report on diagnostic efficacy. Chicago: Efficacy Study Committee of the American College of Radiology.Google Scholar
, , , and (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1996). The role of task and context in preference measurement. Psychological Science, 7, 76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2001). Do frequency representations eliminate conjunction effects? An exercise in adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 12, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1996). Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making. Sloan Management Review, 37, 9–23.Google Scholar
Messick, D., and Sentis, K. (1983). Fairness, preference, and fairness biases. In and (Eds.), Equity Theory: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
, and (1977). Can weather forecasters formulate reliable probability forecasts of precipitation and temperature?National Weather Digest, 2, 2–9.Google Scholar
, and (1992). Negotiating rationally: The power and impact of the negotiator's frame. Academy of Management Executive, 6, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York Times. (2004). Will This Idea Fly? Charge Some Travelers $10 for Showing Up. Technology News, August 25.
(1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, 261–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Commission bias and ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 332–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgmental quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2003). Frequency illusions and other fallacies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 296–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , and (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1972). Probabilistic forecasting: An experiment related to the stock market. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1976). Knee-deep in big muddy: Study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1997) Escalation at the credit window: A longitudinal study of bank executives' recognition and write-off of problem loans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1988). Priming and communication: The social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1986). Hindsight distortion: I knew it all along and I was sure about it. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Social-functionalist frameworks for judgment and choice: Intuitive politicians, theologians, and prosecutors. Psychological Review, 109, 451–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1989). Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In , , and (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1986). Calibration of probability assessments by professional blackjack dealers, statistical experts, and lay people. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 406–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1988). Cognitive loafing: The effects of accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226–232.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by