Determine Decision-Making Pitfalls And Apply To Personal Gro ✓ Solved

Determine decision-making pitfalls and apply to personal big problem

Review the lecture videos and read the textbook to complete this assignment. Do not copy-paste anything from the textbook or PowerPoint slides. Paraphrasing is encouraged to avoid plagiarism.

1. Define the following pitfalls and pratfalls of decision making in your words, with one clear, relatable example for each:

  • Making sound Decision
  • Good decision and subjective utility
  • Descriptive and prescriptive processes
  • Three types of heuristics (available, recognition, representative)
  • Failure to seek disconfirming evidence
  • Overconfidence
  • Wishful thinking
  • Reactance
  • Entrapment
  • Reciprocity
  • Liking
  • Exposure effect
  • Emotional states
  • Mindlessness
  • Unconscious and emotional influences
  • Cognitive dissonance

2. Choose ONE BIG problem of your life that you have been struggling to make the right decision. Examples include choosing a graduate program, finding a partner, selecting a career, buying a house, moving out from parents' house, planning to have a child, getting married, etc.

3. List at least five alternatives (options) related to your original problem.

4. List at least five considerations pertinent to your problem.

5. Use the provided Table 01 (next page) to assess your alternatives, ensuring every alternative is considered against each consideration. Complete the calculations for each option.

6. Based on the assessment, briefly describe three strategies for decision calculation:

  • Overall assessment
  • Dimensional comparison
  • 2/3 ideal rule

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Decision-making is a complex cognitive process influenced by numerous psychological pitfalls and biases. Awareness of these pitfalls is essential for making more rational and strategic choices, especially when dealing with significant personal or organizational issues. This paper first defines key decision-making pitfalls, illustrating each with relatable examples. It then applies this understanding to a personal problem, demonstrating how recognizing these pitfalls can lead to better decision strategies.

Decision-making pitfalls and pratfalls: Making sound decisions involves evaluating options systematically; however, cognitive biases often hinder this process. For example, overconfidence can lead an individual to overestimate their knowledge, resulting in risky ventures such as investing excessively in a volatile stock. Good decision and subjective utility refer to choosing options that maximize personal satisfaction; yet, individuals may favor options that align with their desires, disregarding objective outcomes. Descriptive versus prescriptive processes distinguish between how people actually make decisions versus how they should; often, humans rely on heuristics—a mental shortcut—such as the recognition heuristic, where familiar options are preferred without rigorous analysis.

Heuristics like availability bias undermine rational decision-making. For instance, after hearing about a plane crash, one might overestimate air travel risks despite statistical safety. Failure to seek disconfirming evidence causes confirmation bias, where one only notices information supporting preconceptions, as seen in investment decisions, where investors ignore warning signs of a declining market. Overconfidence can cause traders to ignore risks, believing they are better than they are. Wishful thinking leads individuals to expect favorable outcomes despite evidence to the contrary, such as believing a failing business will turn around. Reactance occurs when people resist suggestions or restrictions, leading to actions to restore freedom, like rebellious behaviors after hearing 'no.' Entrapment involves sticking with failing investments or projects because of past commitments, exemplified by continuing to fund a dying business. Reciprocity influences decision-making through social obligations, which can distort objectivity in negotiations. Liking and exposure effects show that people prefer familiar or liked individuals or options, sometimes ignoring facts. Emotional states, such as anxiety or excitement, often impair judgment, leading to impulsive choices. Mindlessness refers to operating on autopilot, avoiding deliberate analysis, while unconscious influences and emotional factors shape decisions without awareness. Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals justify conflicting beliefs or actions to reduce discomfort, affecting decisions like continuing unhealthy habits despite knowing their harm.

Application to a personal problem: I have been struggling with choosing a career path post-graduation. The alternatives include pursuing further education, entering the workforce in a current field, starting a business, taking a sabbatical to explore interests, or relocating abroad for opportunities. Each option presents benefits and drawbacks, influenced by considerations like financial stability, personal passion, job market prospects, risk tolerance, and social support.

Using the assessment table, I systematically evaluated each alternative against these considerations, assigning scores based on how well they meet each criterion. For instance, pursuing further education scored high on personal growth but lower on immediate financial stability. Entering the workforce scored high on financial considerations but lower on personal fulfillment. Analyzing the options through comparative strategies, I used the overall assessment to weight each alternative by cumulative scores, the dimensional comparison to compare specific attributes between options, and the 2/3 ideal rule to select options that meet at least two-thirds of my prioritized criteria. These strategies provided a structured approach to handle complex personal decisions, minimizing biases and promoting rational choices.

In conclusion, understanding decision-making pitfalls and applying structured evaluation strategies can improve life decisions. Recognizing biases such as overconfidence, emotional influences, and cognitive dissonance allows individuals to make more rational choices aligned with their goals and values.

References

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2013). Judgment in managerial decision making (8th ed.). Wiley.
  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2002). Winning decisions: Getting it right the first time. Currency Doubleday.
  • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.
  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.

Related Assignments