The idea of not having judgment problems is unreal due to the self-orientation arising from the general human inclination. However, nobody talks about the decision to get there. After all, making the right choices is a piece of cake, or is it? People change, situations change, the world changes, so what makes you think, that your perceptions are valid in any circumstance. The paradox of mixing choices with an open-mindset opposes the conventional methods. On an organizational level, making decisions relies on the structure, but it shares the same issues as the personal one.
You must trust your instinct, and reassure that leadership is a part of your package deal. We firmly believe in the message conveyed through this book; encourages you to give it a try.
Objectivity as tool for improving the decision-making 3. Life is a mystery, and the quality of life is based on a wide variety of choices that we make on a day to day basis. Thousands of studies only confirmed this notion and continued with the process to reawaken our hidden potential.
The biggest culprit for making irrational decisions consists of biased perceptions and wrongly calculated outcomes. Before you move to the next level, you have to be ready to cope with life as it is by adopting an objective point of view. Many individuals are still guided by the feeling that memory is a great asset in the journey of becoming a flawless leader or manager.
Like this summary? Apparently we tend to "satisfice" not "optimize", which for me is obvious second hindsight bias and I will try to explain why: In several of the examples, in order to "maximize" value, you need to multiply one probability with one or several others to obtain the "combined probability result" of two or more events happening one after the other.
In other problems, you need to add up the individual probabilities in order to obtain the probability of one or the other event happening. Assuming that you knew how to state the problem in terms of probabilities and the rules to calculate them, you would still need to actually perform the calculations consciously or unconsciously in order to take a decision.
Many decisions need to be taken quickly and even if there is enough time, I do not think people usually do these calculations, so they probably rely on some sort of intuition what the author calls heuristics or rules of thumb. These rules of thumb will depend on past experiences specially on those that are easily accesible to memory because they were frequent or recent or because they had a great emotional impact on us positive or negative.
If to "maximize value" we need to perform complex calculations, then I am sure we do not "maximize", we rather settle with a fairly good decision. Further, if we need to "maximize value" in order to be considered rational, then we are probably not rational.
It would have been interesting to know how people decide when previously given the calculated expected values of each choice considering the probabilities.
I think that "rationality" would increase a bit, but not significantly, since some people believe they can "outperform" the odds by special luck , while others try to avoid undesirable risks, even if the probabilities are very low specially if the impact of the risk is big.
The book explains thoroughly how we deviate from what would be "rational" decision making. Each of the 20 chapters presents research that exemplifies one or more biases like inconsistency, perception and memory biases, framing, intransitivity, neglecting base rates, attribution errors, social loafing, sunk costs and behavioral traps. It makes quite clear that we do not decide in a "rational" way, but it does not explain the actual process we use to make decisions.
Additionally, the author shows that we are not good at probability and statistical analysis, but he does not explain the calculations we should have done were we "rational decision makers".
He could have included it in an Appendix. If you already know this kind of math or if you are not interested, then the book can be read without it. Finally and although the book is very interesting and full of insights, I need to say that I am glad that I bought a used one, since its price seems not too rational to me either. This is a fascinating book analyzing how we are all far less Cartesian than we think.
In other words, a slew of predictable human bias flaws what we feel is our own objective judgment. The author eminently demonstrates this point by forcing the reader to take a 39 questions test at the beginning of the book.
This test is stuffed with all the traps that illustrate the human judgment flaws that he analyzes thoroughly in following specific chapters. You can view the test as a very entertaining IQ test from hell. The questions seem often simple. But, they are not. Other times, they are obviously difficult. I got a bit more than half of them correct. This was mainly because I had some knowledge or experience regarding certain traps the questions presented.
I had made the mistake before. So, I learned from that. When I did not have any prior knowledge of a question, my results were very human, meaning not that good. But, learning the correct answer was both fun and educating. The author touches on several fascinating probability and statistic concepts. In other words, you better understand the Bayes theorem better than the medical specialists who screen you for various diseases. Because, based on the author's study, doctors don't have a clue.
Another chapter had an excellent discussion on correlation vs. This includes some tricky nuances that many analysts in the financial industry trip upon.
This seems impossible, but it is true. The book has obviously a lot more than I am letting on here. I am not going to ruin it for you. It is really fun, educating, and interesting to read.
You will also learn a whole lot about how you think, how others think, and how people think in groups. You will also understand how tricky it is to ask truly open and objective questions. Also, polls that seem objective are not due to the subjective structure of the question. I think you will enjoy this book, and I strongly recommend it. This is a very dense book, relatively easy to read, and very2 helpful.
I love Blink and The Tipping Point, but this book probably has much much more materials, arguably more than 5 times of inside that those two best sellers combined. I am very interested in the popular psycology stuffs, and Influence by Cialdini is my fav. So this book in some way give you the same chockful of surprises and new insight that will change the way you think. I came across recomended by a University of Chicago MBA -email friend- who has much similar books favourites and he recomended this highly, and i absolutely agree and i would be glad to recommend this to anyone interested in human behaviour and psychology of bias.
Jenkins, J. Can we have a fruitful cognitive psychology? Flowers Ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Jennings, D. Tversky luls. Id variable in first Impressions i pei sons. Kelley, H. The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, Keren, G. Facing uncertainty in the game of bridge: A calibration study. Klayman, J. Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.
Psychological Review, 94, Kleinmuntz, D. Cognitive heuristics and feedback in a dynamic decision environment. Management Science, 31, Knetsch, J. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, Knox, R. Postdecision dissonance at post time.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, Kogan, N. Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Koriat, A. Reasons for confidence.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 6, Kristiansen, C. Newspaper coverage of diseases and actual mortality statistics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, Lamal, P. College student common beliefs about psychology.
Teaching of Psychology, pp. Landy, D. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, Langer, E. The illusion of control. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, Heads I win, tails it's chance: The illusion of control as a function of the sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. LaPiere, R. Attitudes vs. Social Forces, 13, Lasky, J. Post-hospital adjustment as predicted by psychiatric patients and by their staff.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, Latane, B. Sex, group size and helping in three cities. Sociometry, 38, The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, The social impact of majorities and minorities.
Psychological Review, 88, Leary, M. The distorted nature of hindsight. Journal of Social Psychology, , Hindsight distortion and the presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, Leddo, J.
Conjunctive explanations: When two reasons are better than one. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, Lefcourt, H. Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Leippe, M. Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, Lelyveld, J. Britain heads for nuclear war at polls. New York Times, p.
Levi, A. Use of the availability heuristic in probability estimates of future events: The effects of imagining outcomes versus imagining reasons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, Lichtenstein, S. Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, Training for calibration. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to Kahneman, P.
Tver-sky Eds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, Cognitive , S Memory: Surprising new insights into how we remember and why we forget.
New York: Ardsley House. Loftus, E. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, Loomes, G. Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty.
Economic Journal, 92, A rationale for preference reversal. American Economic Review, 73, Some implications of a more general form of regret theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 41, Lopes, L. Decision making in the short run. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human learning and Memory, 7, Doing the impossible: A note on induction and the experience of randomness. The rhetoric of irrationality. Distinguishing between random and non-random events.
Lord, C. Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Loy, J. They also saw a game: A replication of a case study. Replications in Social Psychology, 1, Luce, R. Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley. Rational versus plausible accounting equivalences in preference judgments. Psychological Science, 1, Luck, R. Chemical insect control— A troubled pest management strategy.
BioScience, Maass, A. Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, Mackie, D. Group attribution errors and the illusion of group attitude change.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, Maier, N. The contribution of a discussion leader to the quality of group thinking: The effective use of minority opinions.
Human Relations, 5, Malkiel, B. A random walk down Wall Street 4lh ctl. New York: W. Malone, u. Septembei 9 , Double trouble i ivr. Grand Rapids Press, pp. Marks, R. The effect of probability, desirability, and "privilege" on the stated expectations of children. Journal of Personality, 19, Matsuda, N.
Strong, quasi-, and weak conformity among Japanese in the modified Asch procedure. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 16, Mazur, A.
Three Mile Island and the scientific community. Sills Eds. McArthur, L. The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, Illusory causation and illusory correlation: Two epis-temological accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, Figural emphasis and person perception.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, McMillen, D. The effects of alcohol, expectancy, and sensation seeking on driving risk taking. Addictive Behaviors, 14, McNeil, B. C, Jr. On the elici-tation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, , Merton, R. The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, Meyerowitz, B. The effect of message framing on breast selfexamination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Michaels, J. Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting.
Replications in Social Psychology, 2, Milgram, S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, Miller, A.
Perception of obedience to authority. Miller, D. Ego involvement and attribution for success and failure. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, Miller, I. Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review oj'Psychology, 37, Miller, I 84 ulluie ;mcl I he development of everyday social explain] tion. Miller, N. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, Mitchell, R.
Public response to a major failure of a controversial technology. Sills, C. Shelanski Eds. Boulder, CO: West-view Press. Moede, W. Die Richtlinien der Leistungs-Psychologie. Industrielle Psy-chotechnik, 4, Morier, D. The conjunction fallacy: A task specific phenomenon? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, Moscovici, S.
Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, Mullen, B. Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A metaanalytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, Distinctiveness-based illusory correlations and stereotyping: A meta-analytic integration. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, Self-serving attributions for performance in naturalistic settings: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, Murphy, A. A comparative evaluation of objective and subjective weather forecasts in the United States. Journal of Forecasting, 3, Probability forecasting in meteorology.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, Myers, D. Discussion-induced attitude polarization. Human Relations, 28, Polarizing effects of social interaction. Brandstat-ter, J. Stocker-Kreichgauer Eds. London: Academic Press. Social psychology 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill: New York. Discussion effects on racial attitudes.
Science, , Group-induced polarization in simulated juries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, The group polarization phenomenon. Psychological Bulletin, 83, Mynatt, C. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, Nahinsky, I.
Use of negative instances in conjunctive identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84, Nathanson, S. Toward the reduction of entrapment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, Nemeth, C. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, Modelling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, Neuringer, A. Can people behave "randomly"?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, , Nisbett, R. Attribution and the psychology of prediction. Journal of Personality an d Social Psychology, 32, Popular induction: Information is not always informative.
Payne Eds. Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Cognitive manipulation of pain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, Northcraft, G.
Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoringand-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Orvis, B. A closer examination of causal inference: The roles of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information.
Journal of Personalitynuid Social Psychology, 32, Osberg, T. Self-prediction: Exploring the parameters of accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Oskamp, S.
Overconfidence in case study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29, Paese, P. Influences on the appropriateness of confidence in judgment: Practice, effort, information, and decision-in;ikiii! Pious, S. Political illiteracy: A threat to international security. Swords and Ploughshares, pp. Biases in the assimilation of technological breakdowns: Do accidents make us safer? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, The looking glass war. Psychology Today, pp.
Attributional biases among clinicians: A comparison of psychoanalysts and behavior therapists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, Pool, R. The Allais Paradox. Prothro, J. Social explanation: The role of timing, set and recall on subjective likelihood estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, Shubik, M. The Dollar Auction game: A paradox in noncooperative behavior and escalation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15, Sieber, J.
Effects of decision importance on ability to generate warranted subjective uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, Simon, H. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, Skinner, B. Slovic, P. Choice between equally valued alternatives. Perception of risk. On the psychology of experimental surprises.
Rating the risks. Environment, pp. Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk. Tversky Eds. Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment. Compatibly effei tl m judgment nncl hoice In K. M Hogarth Kd.