Heuristics and Biases in the Making of Decisions
Ruth-Ann Dennis
Institutional affiliation
Heuristics and Biases in the Making of Decisions
Every average person makes a sheer number of decisions any given day. As a result, we train the brain to use shortcuts so that it can quickly access the different choices available and at the same time make perfect sense. It would be considered to be a waste of time and energy if an individual engages in an exhaustive cost-benefit analysis in an attempt to make the right decision on the best laundry detergent brand to purchase. Thus, people prefer using different mental shortcuts commonly known as heuristics to make decision making easier. These heuristics provide the general rules of the thumb in the decision-making process. However, despite that heuristics are considered to be the best tools for a quick solution, they make it more likely for a person to make the wrong decision more especially when more complicated issues are involved. Heuristics may be considered simplifications and since they employ much less cognitive resources they tend to simplify serious issues. Although cognitive biases and heuristics are useful for everyday decision making, they can make someone engage in hasty and in most cases incorrect response actions in issues that happen to be complicated.
Currently, I am faced with the decision whether to continue with my vitamin-taking regimen or to quit completely, since it has come to light that there is new evidence linking it to increased risk of chronic diseases or death. Sincerely, I attribute my good health to the vitamins. Further, my decision making has faced complications from friends who claim that the evidence cited is worthless and I should consider it meaningless. Even though I have decided to take enough time and ensure that thorough reasoning is done, there is a possibility that the initial judgment will be as a result of the common decision-making heuristics. The decision that I am currently considering in my life offers an excellent lens to have a better look at the most common heuristics that we face every day and the problems they may cause. Sure enough, my hypochondria makes me perceive the decision that I am about to make may lead to some serious repercussions. I have a strong emotional investment that could interfere with the decision that I should make and it could as well override my reasoning. Even though my situation can be considered as unique, the way heuristics are employed may follow a common thinking pattern. For instance, I have the feeling that vitamins may either be completely harmless or toxic. The worst part is that my emotional biases can make me make a rule in favor of the first conclusion. That would be an absolute disregard for the scientific evidence and this extreme reaction may be deemed as an outcome of common heuristics and biases (Dietrich, 2010).
One major problem that may face such as a serious decision-making process is looking at the vitamin dilemma through the lens of personal emotions. According to Hicks & Kluemper (2011), a strong emotional reaction has the potential to take the place that is supposed to be occupied by more careful reasoning. There are enough reasons for an individual to experience strong emotional reactions in such a situation (Dietrich, 2010). Some people live with the fear of suffering from serious diseases and that’s why they are obsessed with keeping themselves healthy all times. The evidence provided puts me in serious emotional turmoil. To me, giving up on the vitamins is like being asked to stop taking that what provides you the means to keep safe and away from illnesses. Giving up and continuing with my vitamin intake are not easy decisions to make. In short, I consider stopping vitamin consumption as letting go of my source of security. Conversely, continuing to take the vitamins may mean increased exposure to future harm.
Mental shortcuts known as intuitive toxicology could further exacerbate emotional complications. Normally, intuitive toxicology guides the way we see different chemicals and is comprised of the false belief that they may be entirely hazardous or completely safe. That means there should be nothing that ought to be considered as moderately risky. The simplifications brought about by these heuristics erase the complexity of the chemical health risks associated with the consumption of vitamins (Weyman & Barnett, 2016). If an individual falls prey to the all-or-nothing model risk he may not have the capacity to make a proper image of the risks involved or the chances of death. That means such a mentality renders the vitamins to be either dangerously hazardous or completely harmless.
Moreover, there is a possibility that the effects of effect heuristic may interfere with the decision making process. For instance, it is common for people to perceive something that is high risk and at the same time beneficial (Blumenthal-Barby & Krieger, 2015). As a result, of the affect heuristic, if I end up perceiving the vitamins to possess the potential to serious risks, I would treat them as less beneficial and vice versa. Admitting that the process I choose to follow a while ago is dangerous would mean that I am not only admitting that I have actively put my life at risk but also have been taking something that does not have any benefits to the body.
Confirmation bias makes people search for evidence that tends to validate their preferred hypothesis and beliefs. Once an individual comes up with a hypothesis that is suggested by the previous emotional reactions and beliefs, there is a high likelihood that he would search for supporting information and not that refute what he believes in (Hicks & Kluemper, 2011). In my case, if I am not keen I may find myself trying to find information that scrutinizes conflicting evidence more aggressively.
If more supporting research is done, there is a high likelihood that more information that supports my hypothesis would be found. There are a variety of heuristics and biases that can potentially take the place of empirical evidence in decision making (Strough et al., 2011). All these heuristics and the resulting biases may provide me with “evidence” of my all-natural vitamin regime. The found evidence may not be very critical since it is only sought out to confirm my hypothesis. Also, very little analysis or scrutinizing is done to confirm the evidence. That means that personal belief biases, confirmation biases, and short cuts may have a strong impact on my decision-making process.
More evidence in support of my hypothesis may likely be found based on the previous positive experiences I have had with the vitamin regiments. Representative heuristic explains the different ways through which causes are misattributed to various effects (Strough et al., 2011). For instance, there is a myth that experience may help make predictions for the future. That means that, even if there is enough evidence to satisfy the new evidence, the affected person may use the present evidence to support his hypothesis for the future (Weyman & Barnett, 2016). In my case, there is a possibility that I would base the expectations of my vitamins off my experience with them, regardless of whether the two connect or the side effects of the vitamins are expected to be instantaneous. Considering that I attribute the vitamins to my good health, it is clear that I think of them positively. Also, since the vitamins have proved to be extremely beneficial in the past, I may use the different highlighted heuristics and biases to confirm that the new evidence provided by the study is wrong.
To sum up, in the personal situation presented an individual’s emotional reaction to the presented information may dominate the initial thinking process. As a result, it would guide the reasoning employed through various general heuristics. That means that personal polarization of the dilemma and the inability to avoid emotional investment in the situation may make it impossible to believe in the new evidence and its entirety. Nonetheless, the reasoning process should not end there. Heuristics tends to be shortcuts to thinking and hence it is always reasonable to take the longer route in an attempt to arrive at a better solution. It is true that whether I choose to do a critical evaluation of the evidence provided or not, my beliefs would still play a great role in the final decision. However, it is vital to always take time when dealing with multifaceted issues such as the vitamin dilemma. It is through knowing when these heuristics work for us or against what we believe in that we are in a better position to engage in deeper critical thinking so that we can overcome our own biases.
References
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Krieger, H. (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 539-557.
Dietrich, C. (2010). Decision making: Factors that influence decision making, heuristics used, and decision outcomes. Inquiries Journal, 2(02).
Hicks, E. P., & Kluemper, G. T. (2011). Heuristic reasoning and cognitive biases: Are they hindrances to judgments and decision making in orthodontics?. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 139(3), 297-304.
Strough, J., Karns, T. E., & Schlosnagle, L. (2011). Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1235, 57.
Weyman, A., & Barnett, J. (2016). Heuristics and biases in decision making about risk. In Routledge handbook of risk studies (pp. 149-158). Routledge.