The Case Against Deliberative Decision Making Psychology 466: Judgment & Decision Making Instructor: John Miyamoto 11/30/2017: Lecture 10-2 Note: This Powerpoint presentation may contain macros that I wrote to help me create the slides. The macros aren t needed to view the slides. You can disable or delete the macros without any change to the presentation.
Outline Is deliberative decision making always best? Are there cases where deliberative decision making produces inferior outcomes? If so, why? The Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 2
Decision Theory Bias Against Intuitive Decision Making There is no perfect label for the oppositive of deliberative decision making. Intuitive decision making Go with your gut instincts Most research in JDM has argued that deliberative decision making produces better results than intuitive decision making. But is this always true? Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 3
T. Wilson's Arguments for Intuitive Decision Making People have habitual intuitive patterns of decision making that are adapted to everyday decisions. Deliberative decision making may distort a learned adaptive decision process. Giving reasons puts the emphasis on reasons that are readily available. Possibly some valid reasons are difficult to access. Giving reasons may alter the relative weight placed on different issues. Giving reasons may have a greater deliterious influence when a person is not experienced at deliberative decisions in a particular domain. E.g., evaluating quality of jam, evaluating quality of music, evaluating quality of clothing. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 4
Wilson, Schooler, et al.'s Evidence Against Deliberative Decision Making Jam Tasting Experiment: Subjects who gave their reasons for evaluations of jam quality had lower correlation with expert judgment than subjects who were not asked to give their reasons. Poster Choice Experiments: Subjects who gave their reasons for evaluations of poster quality were less satisfied with their choices after several months than subjects who were not asked to give reasons for their evaluations. Preceding effect was strongest for subjects who were not knowledgeable about art. Effect was weak for subjects who were knowledgeable about art. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Introduction to System I and System II 5
System I and System II in Human Judgment and Choice System 1 (Intuitive) Automatic Effortless Associative Rapid, parallel Skilled action Affective (emotional) Causal propensities (relationships) Concrete, specific Prototypes Heuristic Reasoning (fast) System 2 (Reflective) Controlled Effortful Deductive (formal rules of reasoning) Slow, serial Rule application Neutral Statistics Abstract Sets Rules of Reasoning (slow) * This table is Table 2.1 in Kahneman & Frederick (2002). Examples of System 1 and System 2 Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 6
Examples of System 1 and System 2 Examples of System 1 Recognizing the emotion on the face of a friend Noticing that in the USA, little girls wear pink more often than little boys. Examples of System 2 You know that if you want to travel to Canada, you must take your passport. Suppose that Bill wants to travel to Canada. You infer that Bill must take his passport. Joe drove 250 miles and used 10 gallons of gas. His car gets 25 miles per gallon. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Back to Table Showing System 1 and System 2 7
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems System 1 (Intuitive) Automatic Effortless Associative Rapid, parallel Skilled action Affective (emotional) Causal propensities (relationships) Concrete, specific Prototypes System 2 (Reflective) Controlled Effortful Deductive Slow, serial Rule application Neutral Statistical relationships Abstract Sets Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Focus on Automatic vs Controlled Processing 8
Automatic versus Controlled Processes System 1 (Intuitive) Automatic... System 2 (Reflective) Controlled... Automatic processes o Highly practiced, e.g., understanding spoken English; reading; recognizing objects o Process can be executed without attending to it o Initiation and execution of the process is involuntary, e.g., you can t choose to understand English or not to understand English. Controlled processes o Often not highly practiced, e.g., multiplying 19 x 23. o o Requires attention and effort whether or not it is highly practiced, e.g., writing a short essay, solving a math problem, drawing a diagram of your apartment. Initiation and execution of the process can be voluntarily controlled. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Same Slide without Dimming 9
Automatic versus Controlled Processes System 1 (Intuitive) Automatic... System 2 (Reflective) Controlled... Automatic processes o Highly practiced, e.g., understanding spoken English; reading; recognizing objects o Process can be executed without attending to it o Initiation and execution of the process is involuntary, e.g., you can t choose to understand English or not to understand English. Controlled processes o Often not highly practiced, e.g., multiplying 19 x 23. o o Requires attention and effort whether or not it is highly practiced, e.g., writing a short essay, solving a math problem, drawing a diagram of your apartment. Initiation and execution of the process can be voluntarily controlled. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Focus on Associative vs Deductive Processing 10
System 1 (Intuitive) Associative versus Deductive Reasoning Associative... System 2 (Reflective) Deductive (formal rules of reasoning)... Associative Reasoning: Emphasizes frequent or typical relationships. E.g., if you see a dog, you expect to see his master. E.g., if you hear a breaking sound, you expect to see that something has been broken. E.g., if you smell the medicine in a dentist s office, you anticipate some pain and discomfort. Reasoning by Rules: Emphasizes inferences that are sanctioned by rules of reasoning E.g., if the food at a restaurant was extremely good the first time that you go to it, it will probably be good, but not quite as good if you eat there a second time. E.g., it is less likely that Linda is a bank teller who is a feminist than that she is simply a bank teller whether or not she is a feminist. E.g., large random samples provide better estimates than small random samples. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Same Slide without Emphases 11
System 1 (Intuitive) Associative versus Deductive Reasoning Associative... System 2 (Reflective) Deductive (formal rules of reasoning)... Associative Reasoning: Emphasizes frequent or typical relationships. E.g., if you see a dog, you expect to see his master. E.g., if you hear a breaking sound, you expect to see that something has been broken. E.g., if you smell the medicine in a dentist s office, you anticipate some pain and discomfort. Reasoning by Rules: Emphasizes inferences that are sanctioned by rules of reasoning E.g., if the food at a restaurant was extremely good the first time that you go to it, it will probably be good, but not quite as good if you eat there a second time. E.g., it is less likely that Linda is a bank teller who is a feminist than that she is simply a bank teller whether or not she is a feminist. E.g., large random samples provide better estimates than small random samples. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Focus on Rapid Parallel vs Slow Serial Processing 12
System 1 (Intuitive) Paralle versus Serial Rapid, parallel... System 2 (Reflective) Slow, serial... Parallel processes multiple cognitive processes can be executed concurrently E.g., while driving, one can process visual information from many parts of the visual field. E.g., while understanding a sentence, one can process the possible meanings at the same time as one processes the acoustic analysis of the sentence. Serial processes only one cognitive process can be executing at any moment E.g., While talking on the phone and balancing one s checkbook, one allocates attention to one or the other process, but not both. E.g., While multiplying 17 times 12 in one s head, the multiplication and addition steps occur in sequence, not simultaneously. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Same Slide without Emphases 13
System 1 (Intuitive) Paralle versus Serial Rapid, parallel... System 2 (Reflective) Slow, serial... Parallel processes multiple cognitive processes can be executed concurrently E.g., while driving, one can process visual information from many parts of the visual field. E.g., while understanding a sentence, one can process the possible meanings at the same time as one processes the acoustic analysis of the sentence. Serial processes only one cognitive process can be executing at any moment E.g., While talking on the phone and balancing one s checkbook, one allocates attention to one or the other process, but not both. E.g., While multiplying 17 times 12 in one s head, the multiplication and addition steps occur in sequence, not simultaneously. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Focus on Content Effects 14
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems System 1 (Intuitive)... System 2 (Reflective)... Affective (emotional) Causal propensities (relationships) Concrete, specific Prototypes Neutral Statistics Abstract Sets The typical content of System 1 and 2 reasoning differs in content in obvious ways. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Next:Stroop Effect 15
The Stroop Task (An illustration of automatic and controlled processes) State the color in which each word is printed. Set 1: elf, ball, table, storm, group, end, find, away, drop, book, fish, tree,... Set 2: red, blue, red, red, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, red, red, red,... Set 3: red, blue, red, red, red, blue, blue, blue, red, blue, blue, red, red, red,... Stroop effect Set 3 is much slower than Set 1 or Set 2. Why is Set 3 harder than Set 1 or Set 2? Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Diagram of Information Process for Stroop Effect 16
Information Processing Diagram for Stroop Effect Stimulus: "blue" System 1: Process Meaning (automatic, involuntary, fast) System 2: Name Font Color (rule-governed, voluntary, slow) Working Memory: Select Response "blue" or "red" Verbal Description of Information Processing During the Stroop Task (Skip Past Next Slide) Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 17
Explanation of the Stroop Effect Why Does It Occur? Reading is a highly practiced, automatic skill. (System 1) Central processor accesses the word meaning (concept of red or concept of blue) quickly and automatically. This process is involuntary (cannot easily be suppressed or inhibited). Task instruction requires following a rule: Name the font color (System 2) Rule processing is slower than the automatic reading process. Response conflict between saying "blue" when looking at a blue "red". Also, conflict between saying "red" when looking at a red "blue". Response conflict causes slower response. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Conclusions re Stroop Effect 18
Stroop Effect: Conclusions Stroop effect is cited as an example in support of the following: Automatic process extracting the meaning of blue Controlled process identifying the color of blue Reading the word meaning cannot be voluntarily inhibited. Difficulty occurs when an automatic process (extracting the meaning of a color word) conflicts with a rule-governed process (naming the color). Automatic and controlled processes can both occur at the same time, and sometimes they come into conflict. Hypothesis: Heuristic reasoning conflicts with rule-based reasoning with gambles and probabilities. Sometimes it dominates. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Return to Complete Table of System 1 vs System 2 19
Kahneman & Frederick (2002), Table 2.1: Two Cognitive Systems System 1 (Intuitive) Automatic Effortless Associative Rapid, parallel Skilled action Affective (emotional) Causal propensities (relationships) Concrete, specific Prototypes Heuristic Reasoning Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 System 2 (Reflective) Controlled Effortful Deductive (formal rules of reasoning) Slow, serial Rule application Neutral Statistics Abstract Sets Rules of Probability & Rational Choice Begin discussion of Attribute Substitution 20
Transition to Topic of Attribute Substitution Attribute substitution is a process that regulates the conflict between System 1 and System 2. System 1 and System 2 are sources of inferences. Sometimes they conflict Hypothesis: Attribute substitution occurs often in judgment processes. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Intro to Attribute Substitution 21
An Example of Attribute Substitution Person wants to evaluate a case with respect to a target attribute. E.g., you are interviewing job applicants. Target Attribute: How they will perform on the job over the long run. The target attribute is hard to evaluate directly but information about a related heuristic attribute comes readily to mind. E.g. Heuristic attribute = success of job interview. Attribute Substitution: Judgment of target attribute is based on the heuristic attribute. K&F example: Professor hears the talk of a job candidate. Target attribute: How successful will this candidate be in the long run? Heuristic attribute: How impressive was the talk? Attribute Substitution Occurs in Heuristic Judgment Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 22
Attribute Substitution in Probability Judgment Target attribute: Probability of an event, e.g., Obama s jobs program will be enacted. Heuristic attribute: Similarity to other political situations or availability of analogous political situations. Hypothesis that motivated Kahneman & Tversky s research: People substitute similarity or availability for probability. Similarity & availability System 1 Probability theory System 2 When Does Attribute Substitution Occur? Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 23
When is Attribute Substitution Likely to Occur? (K&F) K&F: Attribute substitution is more likely when: 1. the target attribute is relatively inaccessible, i.e., hard to evaluate or unfamiliar; 2. a semantically and associatively related attribute is highly accessible (heuristic attribute); 3. the substitution of the heuristic attribute in the judgment is not rejected by critical operations of System 2. Examples of common attribute substitutions: Habitual substitution of similarity for probability (representativeness) Habitual substitution of availability for probability (availability) Habitual substitution of fluency for recollective memory processes Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Cartoon Showing Attribute Substitution in Availability Heuristic 24
System I & II and the Availability Heuristic Is it dangerous to teach in high school? System I: Teenagers are dangerous. It is dangerous to be a high school teacher. System II: Maybe I m overly influenced by recent events. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Cartoon Showing Attribute Substitution in Base Rate Neglect 25
System I & II and Similarity Will a great college football player succeed as a professional player? System I: Bob Jones is a tremendous college football player. He will be a great pro football player. System II: Many outstanding college players don t succeed as professional players. Intro Deliberation Without Attention Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 26
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Deliberation Without Attention Effect 27 Deliberation Without Attention (DWoA) Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311, 1005 1007. DWA = Deliberation With Attention DWoA = Deliberation Without Attention DWoA occurs when... (a) one considers a decision question; (b) one spends some time thinking about something else (distraction); (c) one returns to the decision and makes a decision.
Deliberation Without Attention (DWoA) Effect Limitations of deliberative decision making: Deliberation places demands on a low capacity resource. (Working memory is limited capacity. Deliberation is a System II process.) Deliberation can distort the weighting placed on different attributes. Hypothesis: DWA better than DWoA on simple decisions; DWA worse than DWoA on complex decisions. Why should this be? DWA places heavy demands on limited working memory. Complex problem overflows capacity of working memory. DWA makes errors by over-simplifying a complex decision. DWoA processes complex decisions by associative processes that do not require working memory. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Choosing a Car Study 28
Choosing a Car Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberationwithout-attention effect. Science, 311, 1005 1007. Stimuli: 4 car descriptions: Car A: 75% positive attributes, 25% negative attributes Cars B and C: 50% positive attributes, 50% negative attributes Car D: 25% positive attributes, 75% negative attributes Best Car Experimental Design: [Simple vs Complex] x [DWA vs DWoA] Simple Condition: All cars had 4 attributes, e.g., mileage, safety, looks, etc. Complex Condition: All cars had 12 attributes. DWA: Look at the car descriptions; spend 4 minutes thinking about what is the best choice; make choice. DWoA: Look at the car descriptions; spend 4 minutes working on a anagrams; make choice. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Results: Study 1 of Choosing a Car Study 29
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Study 2: Difference in Liking for Best versus Worst Car 30 Results: Choosing a Car Study 1. % participants who chose the most desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Study 1: DWA and DWoA perform about the same on simple choice (4 aspects), but DWoA performs better than DWA on complex choice (12 aspects).
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Same Slide Without Shading and Red Bars 31 Results: Choosing a Car Study 1. % participants who chose the most desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Study 2. Difference in liking for most versus least desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Study 1: DWA and DWoA perform about the same on simple choice (4 aspects), but DWoA performs better than DWA on complex choice (12 aspects). Study 2: DWA has strong preference for best car in simple choice, but almost no preference in complex choice. DWoA has strong preference for best car in both simple and complex choice.
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Interpretation of Studies 1 and 2 32 Results: Choosing a Car Study 1. % participants who chose the most desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Study 2. Difference in liking for most versus least desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Study 1: DWA and DWoA perform about the same on simple choice (4 aspects), but DWoA performs better than DWA on complex choice (12 aspects). Study 2: DWA has strong preference for best car in simple choice, but almost no preference in complex choice. DWoA has strong preference for best car in both simple and complex choice.
Interpretation of "Choosing a Car" Studies 1 and 2 Study 1. % participants who chose the most desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Study 2. Difference in liking for most versus least desirable car as a function of complexity of decision and conscious/unconscious (DWA/DWoA) choice. Interpretation of Studies 1 and 2: DWoA outperforms DWA on complex choices. There is some evidence that DWA outperforms DWoA on simple choices. Hypothesis: DWA places excessive demands on working memory, especially when the decision is complex. This hurts performance on complex decisions. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Low versus High Deliberation Shoppers and Items 33
Shopping Study: Shopping Style & Item Deliberation Shoppers answer questionnaires about how much time they spend thinking about their shopping choices. Low Deliberation Shoppers (Unconscious Shoppers): High Deliberation Shopper (Conscious Shoppers): Median Split Shopping Items: Shampoo, CD, shoes, plane ticket, camera, room. Increasing amount of deliberation Low Deliberation Shopping Items, e.g., shampoo. Shoppers report considering few attributes before making a choice. High Deliberation Shopping Items, e.g., camera. Shoppers report considering many attributes before making a choice. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Results of Shopping Study: Focus First on Results for CD Only 34
Satisfaction with Choice Results for Shopping Study Experimental Design Low Item Complexity High Explain results for CD: Dependent variable is post-choice satisfaction with CD. White Bar: Satisfaction of High Deliberation Shoppers. Black Bar: Satisfaction of Low Deliberation Shoppers. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Same Slide Without Shading and Emphasis 35
Satisfaction with Choice Results for Shopping Study Experimental Design Low Item Complexity High Notice: Low deliberation shoppers are more satisfied than high deliberation shoppers when the shopping item demands more deliberation. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Same Slide without the Blue Markers 36
Satisfaction with Choice Results for Shopping Study Experimental Design Low Item Complexity High Notice: Low deliberation shoppers are more satisfied than high deliberation shoppers when the shopping item demands more deliberation. Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 Does Deliberation Make Us Unhappy? - END 37
Psych 466, Miyamoto, Aut '17 38 END Does Deliberation Make Us Less Satisfied? Does deliberation make us less satisfied with the outcome of our choice? Dijksterhuis argument does not apply to decisions with decision aids, e.g., linear judgment models, Benjamin Franklin method,... Isn t this a question of balance? Deliberate when the consequences are important and long lasting, but don t overdo it.