Download
1 / 34
340 likes | 357 Views
Daniel Kahnemans teori om 2 tankesystemer som analysemodell for å forstå psykologiske prosesser bak elevers (feil)valg. Vrådal 17/11-2016 Arne Svendsrud a rne.svendsrud@karriereverktoy.no www.karriereverktoy.no. Arne Svendsrud. Psykolog, spesialisering i arbeidspsykologi
E N D
Daniel Kahnemans teori om 2 tankesystemer som analysemodell for å forstå psykologiske prosesser bak elevers (feil)valg Vrådal 17/11-2016 Arne Svendsrud arne.svendsrud@karriereverktoy.no www.karriereverktoy.no
Arne Svendsrud • Psykolog, spesialisering i arbeidspsykologi • Jobber i NHO Arbeid&Inkludering med opplæring, kurs og studier innen karriereveiledning, se http://arbeidoginkludering.no/ • Driver også firmaet Karriereverktøy AS: Har utviklet en rekke karriereveiledningsverktøy som forener tidligere tiders teorier med nye konstruktivistiske karriereteorier • Verktøyene er i utstrakt bruk i profesjonelle miljøer i Norge: Jobpics, Structurered Career Interview (SCI) og Work Interest Explorer (WIE), se www.karriereverktoy.no
Lærebok i karriereveiledning: ”Karriereveiledning i et karrierelæringsperspektiv” http://www.universitetsforlaget.no/nettbutikk/karriereveiledning-i-et-karrierelaeringsperspektiv-uf.html
Facebook • Velkommen til vår lukkede facebookgruppe "Karriereveiledning - et diskusjonsforum for veiledere" – over 3000 medlemmer fra hele karriereveilednings-Norge! • Lik Karriereverktøy DA på Facebook, så får du lett tilgang til små og store nyheter om WIE!
http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/education-and-skills/moments-of-choice-how-young-people-make-career-decisions/http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/education-and-skills/moments-of-choice-how-young-people-make-career-decisions/
To tankesystemer i beslutningstaking System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious – -- - brukes på dagligdagse situasjoner
To tankesystemer i beslutningstaking System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious – brukes når noe krever ekstra oppmerksomhet 17 x 24
To tankesystemer i beslutningstaking • System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious – brukespådagligdagsesituasjoner • System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious – brukesnårnoekreverekstraoppmerksomhet • system 1 og 2 aktive hele tiden mens vi er våkne. system 1 kjører automatisk, og system 2 er vanligvis i hvilemodus • system 1 genererer fortløpende forslag til system 2: inntrykk, intuisjoner, intensjoner og følelser. • Hvis system 2 godkjenner dem, blir inntrykk og intuisjoner til overbevisninger, og impulser blir til viljeshandlinger. • mesteparten av tiden, overtar system 2 forslagene fra system 1 med få eller ingen endringer. Generelt tror du på inntrykkene dine og handler etter ønskene dine.. • Når system 1 møter vanskeligheter, påkaller det system 2 for å bidra med mer detaljert og spesifikk bearbeiding som kan løse det aktuelle problemet. • Daniel Kahneman, 2011 – Nobelprisvinner, 2002
Utdanning som signal • The psychological literature proposes the existence of an effort heuristic”, where value isassigned to an object or product based on the perceived effort that went into it. This isconsistent with a large body of the economic literature, which discusses the extent to whicheducation equips people for the sector they enter, versus the extent to which it insteadfunctions as a more general “costly signal” of their ability level. • The theory Is that rationalactors will only consume education to the extent that the “cost” (in mental struggle) of acquiringit outweighs the anticipated benefits. • For students with lower abilities, the “cost” thusconstrued of a qualification will be higher, and they will opt for lower levels of education. • Therefore students who undertake higher levels of education, or courses that are perceived bythe job market to be more difficult to enter and complete, signal to employers that they have ahigher level of ability. • This heuristic also signals to young people the value of qualifications onoffer: those that are perceived as easier can appear to be less desirable.
Valg overload • Choice overload (or “overchoice”) arises when the demands of optimising over a choice setexceed the processing power of System 2. • In these instances, one is likely either to make anintuitive, unconsidered choice or to avoid making the decision at all. This has been shown in aUS study investigating employee enrolment in pension plans. If a plan offered more funds tochoose from, the probability of employee participation actually decreased. Typically, adding tenfund options was associated with a 1.5 — 2 per cent drop in participation rate. • Marketing research has found that offering more products is expected to increase market shareonly where these products can be compared and ranked along a single dimension. • Researchsuggests that “traditional” higher education—bound students have a fairly clear rule—of—thumb:they have one main qualification option (a bachelor’s degree) and they tend to focus on theinstitution of study more than the course.79 In other words, they are ranking “products”primarily on one dimension, institutional quality, where there is good information with which torank options. Other considerations are relevant, but secondary. • Further, with complex choicesets, System 1 will discard choices for which it feels it does not have complete informationabout benefits (this is known as the ambiguity heuristic).If we wish young people to make a reflective decision across a range of options, we expect themto simultaneously choose qualification type, institution and subject area, and navigate the noiseof a wide range of careers products and advisors, with varying levels of reliability. This poses asignificant strain for System 2.
Her og nå Bias • Behavioural science has demonstrated that we like what we have now more than what we couldhave in the future. As a result, we tend to systematically underweight future costs and benefitsin our decisions. • This is called present bias and can, for example, explain why reducingrelatively minor frictions can Increase US college application rates. • It can also explain whyyoung people might opt to enter the workforce too soon: the benefits of study are ambiguous,distributed into the future and difficult to imagine, whereas the opportunity for immediatefinancial gain from employment is highly salient. • An ability to look to the future and conceiveof a future “work self” has also been proved to correlate highly with how proactive an individualIs in managing and exploring their career. • Therefore the case to enable young people draw thelink from present day situations to future possibilities becomes even stronger.
Søke bekreftelse • A cognitive bias that helps us feel confident about our beliefs and decisions is confirmationbias. It can be defined as the “unwitting selectivity in the acquisition and use of evidence”“,and affects our reasoning and decision—making in many ways. It is well—established that peoplehave a general tendency to retain a currently favoured belief (such as: “choosing Subject A willhelp me get a job”) and search only for the information that confirms this belief. • Any evidencethat is unexpected and disconfirming will be viewed as dubious, whereas the confirmingevidence Is seen as trustworthy. • These processes may lead young people to make decisions that are in fact not well founded inthe available data, even when the individual thinks they have done a thorough search. • Forexample, a young person who believes that choosing to study Psychology will help them to get ajob in Marketing might not attend to the information that many recent graduates are strugglingto find degree—level jobs. • Instead, she might seek out positive reports of graduate students, or decide that the newspaper article discussing the lack of graduate opportunities was not basedon adequate data.
Følelsen av risiko • Although it might be assumed that a decision that feels high—risk or important would be morelikely to engage reflective thinking, this is not always the case. • The importance and complexityof a decision can make it so cognitively depleting that System 2 is more inclined to avoidInterrogating judgements made by System 1. High—risk or important choices can also elicitstrong emotional reactions, and research suggests that people underestimate the effect of theiremotional state on their preferences. • In addition, research suggests that peopleunderestimate the benefits and overestimate the risks of options that elicit negative feelings. • This particularly matters when we are considering how to influence the cohort of young peoplewho are unsure or uncommitted to a particular career, or who have just experienced a shock totheir plans.
Familiæritets prinsippet • The familiarity principle describes the behavioural effect that we tend to develop a preferencefor things simply because they are familiar. • This highlights the need for young people to beexposed to a wide range of different jobs so that they are not limited in their careers simplybecause of a limited exposure to labour market opportunities. • The familiarity principle couldexplain young people expressing a desire for “1984” jobs: these are the roles occupied by theirparents or carers, or that they have seen on TV or encountered in their lives. • This reasoningunderscores the importance of introducing young people to jobs that may be out of theircomfort zone, and especially to jobs that have only recently come into existence; for example,because of technological advancement.
Sosiale Normer og budbringere man kan assosiere seg med • When we are faced with a difficult decision, or a decision where the payoffs of different choicesare not obvious, one of the most common things we do is to take our cue from those aroundus. • Studies have shown that beyond a certain point, adding more choices to a restaurant menu increases the propensity of diners to order the same thing as each other."When the question of “What should I do?” is too difficult, System 1 finds “What is everyone else doing?” anappealing substitute: this is known as the social proof heuristic. • Social norms are the currents underlying social proof. They are what individuals understandabout the rules governing behaviour In their reference group. If most people in a group go touniversity, for example, an individual is breaking an unspoken rule in the group by consideringan apprenticeship. • This also means that information sources (or “messengers”) that youngpeople identify as being part of their reference group can be highly influential In shaping youngpeople’s understanding of prevailing social norms, including their attitudes towards careers andthe process they go through to consider different options.
Budbringere med Autoritet • Relatable messengers communicate something about the norms and expectations of the peergroup. • However, authoritative messengers provide information about what people should bedoing, or what is best for them to do. For example, there Is evidence that people are more likelyto act on health information if it is provided by a messenger who is considered an expert. • It isimportant to understand which messengers the young person considers authoritative: for someit may be the CGP, but other authoritative messengers may be parents, teachers, celebrities, orthe government. • Their advice is therefore most likely to be acted upon, which means it isImportant that they have the Information to deliver the right and most useful advice forstudents.
5 Former for søking etter karriereinformasjon Samle Bekrefte Tilstrekkelig nok Fastlåst Frakoblet
5 former for søking etter karriereinformasjon(samle, bekrefte,tilstrekkelig nok, fastlåst, frakoblet )
Tilstrekkelig nok(Satisficing) : - Informasjon + Valgalternativer
OPPGAVE: • Hvilke av disse 5 formene for søking etter karriereinformasjon er dine elever i?
Utdanningsmesser og åpne dager – Kilder til moments of inspiration
Kule videoer • Das handwerk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhM6igXVst8 • Skjetlein vgs Naturbruk • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ielNBdRSD4 • Car Mechanic Simulator : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOPE1Z05rqw
