1 / 115

The Psychology of Judgment & Decision Making

The Psychology of Judgment & Decision Making. MIS 696A – Readings in MIS (Nunamaker) 05 November 2003 [Cha / Correll / Diller / Gite / Kim / Liu / Zhong]. SECTION I: Perception, Memory & Context. Hoon Cha & Jeff Correll. Chapter 1: Selective Perception. Hoon Cha. Define First and See?.

hoshi
Download Presentation

The Psychology of Judgment & Decision Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Psychology ofJudgment & Decision Making MIS 696A – Readings in MIS (Nunamaker) 05 November 2003 [Cha / Correll / Diller / Gite / Kim / Liu / Zhong]

  2. SECTION I:Perception, Memory & Context Hoon Cha & Jeff Correll

  3. Chapter 1:Selective Perception Hoon Cha

  4. Define First and See? • People selectively perceive what they expect and hope to see

  5. Examples • Any book which is published will have been read possibly hundreds of times, including by professional proof readers. • And yet grammatical and other errors still get into print. Why? • Because the mind is very kind and corrects the errors that our eyes see.

  6. Lessons Learned • Before conducting your research and interpreting your results • Ask yourself what expectations you did bring into the situation? • Consult with others who don’t share your expectations and motives

  7. Chapter 2:Cognitive Dissonance

  8. Are you a sexist person? • People are motivated to reduce or avoid psychological inconsistencies. • Cognitive dissonance • People are in much the same position as an outside observer when making inferences. • Self-Perception

  9. Examples • Smokers find all kinds of reasons to explain away their unhealthy habit. • The alternative is to feel a great deal of dissonance.

  10. Lessons Learned • Change in behavior can influence change in attitude • During your research, get other people to commit themselves to own the object, then they will form more positive attitudes toward an object. • Use systems development as a research methodology

  11. Chapter 3:Memory & Hindsight Biases

  12. "I knew it all along …" • Memory is reconstructive, not a storage chest in the brain. • Shattered memories • It can be embarrassing when things happen unexpectedly. People tend to view what has already happened as relatively inevitable and obvious. • Hindsight bias

  13. Examples • Just before the election, people tend to be uncertain about who will win; but, after the election, they tend to point to signs that they now say had indicated clearly to them which candidate was going to win. • In other words, they are likely to remember incorrectly that they had known all along who the winning candidate was going to be.

  14. Lessons Learned • During your research, explicitly consider how past events might have turned out differently. • Keep in mind the value of keeping accurate notes and records of past events

  15. Chapter 4:Context Dependence Jeff Correll

  16. 4 Illustrations of Context Effect • Contrast Effect • Primacy Effect • Recency Effect • Halo Effect

  17. Contrast Effect • Examples: • Experiment with 3 bowls of water • Sports announcer standing next to basketball players vs. horse jockeys • Only occurs among similar objects – ex: apparent size won’t change if standing next to a large race horse (Ebbinghaus Illusion)

  18. Primacy Effect • Characteristics appearing early in a list influence impressions more strongly than those appearing later – Asch (1946) • The first entry is most important, but 2nd and 3rd also show a primacy effect-Anderson(1965) • This effect also occurs in many other situations involving sequential information

  19. Recency Effect • Sometimes the final presentation has more influence than the first • Which is stronger? – it depends (Miller and Campbell study - 1959) • Hoch (1984) found similar results in human prediction experiments

  20. Halo Effect • People can’t treat an individual as a compound of separate qualities and rate these qualities independent of the others • Examples: Army officer ratings, teacher evaluations, “beauty halo”, warm vs. cold, teacher expectations, etc.

  21. Conclusion – Context Dependence • Everything is context-dependent • Persuasion professionals exploit these effects • Includes us as MIS Researchers! • Contextual effects are limited

  22. SECTION II:How Questions Affect Answers How the format of a problem can influence the way people respond to it Jeff Correll

  23. Chapter 5:Plasticity Jeff Correll

  24. Are you a ‘gambler’? • Same choice in a different context can lead to very different answers: • A: 100% chance of losing $50 • B: 25% chance lose $200, 75% nothing • Worded in ‘sure loss language’ = Risk-taking • Worded in ‘insurance language’=Risk-averse

  25. Order Effects • Order of questions/alternatives also influence responses • Example: Schuman and Presser’s 1981 survey on freedom of the press • Recency effect is the most common response order effect • Example: Survey question about divorce

  26. Pseudo-Opinions • People will offer an opinion on a topic about which they have no real opinion (“pseudo-opinion”) – 25 to 35% • Multiple humorous examples • Common in issues involving foreign and military policy • Must be separated through filtering

  27. Inconsistency • Discrepancy between two related attitudes (attitude-attitude) or an attitude and a corresponding behavior (attitude-behavior) • Attitude-attitude inconsistency: Attitudes about abstract propositions are often unrelated to attitudes about specific applications of the same proposition! • Attitude-behavior inconsistency: People can hold abstract opinions which have little or nothing to do with their actual behavior!

  28. Inconsistency – Continued • Ultimate example of attitude-behavior inconsistency: Darley and Batson’s 1973 experiment on seminary students • Should we abandon the idea of attitudes altogether (Wicker)? • “Revisionist” attitude researchers say no - attitudes are consistent with behavior, provided certain conditions are met (Atzen et al – 1977)

  29. Conclusion – Plasticity • Russian Proverb: • “Going through life is not so simple as crossing a field” • Translation to Judgment and Decision-Making: • “Measuring an attitude, opinion, or preference is not so simple as asking a question” • We as MIS researchers must pay close attention to the structure and context of our survey questions!

  30. Chapter 6:Effects of Wording & Framing Jeff Correll

  31. Question Wording • Small changes in wording can equal big changes in how people answer: • Example: Does your country’s nuclear weapons make you feel “safe”? (40% yes, 50% no, 10% no opinion) vs. “safer”? (50% yes, 36% no, 14% no opinion) • Potential pitfalls in question wording: • “Forced Choice” questions (no middle category) • Questions with a middle category • Open vs. Closed Questions - Schuman and Scott (1987)

  32. Response Scales / Social Desirability / Allow vs. Forbid • Differences in response scales also influence results (ex: reported TV usage) • In the absence of a firm opinion on an issue, respondents typically cling to “catch phrases” that point them in a socially desirable direction • Are you for or against a freeze in nuclear weapons? (one question equated it with “Russian nuclear superiority”, the other with “world peace”) • Varying the words Allow and Forbid leads to very different responses (Rugg -1941)

  33. Framing • People respond differently to losses than to gains (Tversky and Kahneman-1981) • A: Sure gain of $240, or • B: 25% chance to gain $1000, 75% chance to gain $0 • 84% chose A over B (people tend to be risk averse with gains) • C: Sure loss of $750, or • D: 75% chance to lose $1000, 25% chance to lose $0 • 87% chose D over C (people tend to be risk seeking w/losses)

  34. Framing – Continued • Interesting point: A and D are chosen together 73% of time, yet B and C together has a higher expected value outcome • Concept has similar application to Medical Decision Making: • “Asian Disease” question (1981) • Lung cancer treatment decision experiment

  35. Psychological Accounting • Decision makers also frame the outcomes of their choices • Main issue: Is the outcome framed in terms of the direct consequences of an act (“minimal account”) or is it evaluated with respect to a previous balance (“inclusive account”)? • Price to see a play is $10. As you enter theatre, you realize you’ve lost a $10 bill. Would you still pay $10 for a ticket to the play? (88% said yes) • Same situation, but this time you’ve lost your $10 ticket (which you’ve already paid for and can’t replace). Would you pay $10 for another ticket? (only 46% said yes!)

  36. Conclusion – Question Wording and Framing • Can significantly affect how people respond • In our studies, we as MIS researchers must consider how respondents’ answers might have changed based on all of the previous factors • Furthermore, we should probably qualify interpretations of results until multiple variations in wording/framing can be tested: • If multiple procedure results are consistent, there may be some basis for trusting the judgment; otherwise ‘further analysis required’ (Slovic, Griffin, and Tversky – 1990)

  37. SECTION III:Models of Decision Making Chris Diller

  38. Chapter 7:Expected Utility Theory

  39. Classic Utility Theory • Example: Self-Test Question #30 • The "St. Petersburg Paradox" • Question initially posed by Nicolas Bernoulli (1713) • "Solution" provided by Daniel Bernoulli (1738/1754)

  40. Expected Utility Theory • Expected Utility Theory • Developed by von Neumann & Morganstern (1947) • The value of money DECLINES with the amount won (or already possessed) • Normative … NOT descriptive!

  41. Expected Utility Theory • "Rational Decision Making" Assumptions • Ordering = Preferred alternatives or indifference • Dominance = Alternative with better outcome(s) • "Weakly" dominant vs. "Strongly" dominant • Cancellation = Ignore identical factors/consequences • Transitivity = If A > B and B > C … then A > C ! • Continuity = Prefer gamble to sure thing (odds!) • Invariance = Unaffected by way alt's are presented • A Major Paradigm with Many Extensions

  42. Chapter 8:Paradoxes in Rationality

  43. The Allais Paradox • Example: Self-Test Question #28 • Maurice Allais (1953) • Showed how the Cancellation Principle is violated • The addition of equivalent consequences CAN lead people to make different (irrational?) choices

  44. Ellsberg's Paradox • Daniel Ellsberg (1961) • Also showed how Cancellation Principle is violated • People to make different (irrational?) choices in order to avoid uncertain probabilities • Example: Urn with 90 balls (R/B/Y)

  45. Intransitivity • "Money Pump" • Decision makers with intransitive preferences • A < B  B < C  A > C • Amos Tversky (1969) • Harvard study: 1/3 of subjects displayed this! • "Committee Problem" Example • Choose between three applicants • Leader frames vote to avoid direct comparisons

  46. Preference Reversals • Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic (1971) • Preferences can be "reversed" depending upon how they are elicited • High payoff vs. High probability • Choosing between a PAIR of alternatives involves different psychological processes … than bidding on a particular alternative separately • Exist even for experienced DMs in real life! • Example: Study of Las Vegas bettors & dealers

  47. Conclusions • Violations of EUT are not always irrational! • Approximations simplify difficult decisions • Increase efficiency by reducing cognitive effort • Lead to decisions similar to optimal strategies • Assume that the world is NOT designed to take advantage of the approximation efforts utilized A decision strategy that can not be defended as logical may be rational if it yields a quick approximation of a normative strategy that maximizes utility.

  48. Chapter 9:Descriptive Models of DM

  49. Satisficing • Herb Simon Blows Up EUT (1956) • Simplifying assumptions make the problems tractable: • DMs are assumed to have complete information • DMs are assumed to understand and USE this information • DMs are assumed to compare calculations & maximize utility • Simon says: People "satisfice" rather than optimize • "People often choose a path that satisfies their most important needs, even though the choice may not be ideal or optimal." • Humans' adaptive nature falls short of economic maximization

  50. Prospect Theory • Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky (1979) • Prospect Theory differs from EUT in two big ways: • Replace "Utility" with "Value" (net wealth vs. gains/losses) • The value function for losses is different than the one for gains

More Related