Decision Making: the process of making a selective intellectual judgment when presented with several complex alternatives consisting of several variables, and usually defining a course of action or an idea. (MeSH) Strategies used when evaluating options. (Hockenbury, 267)
“Emotion” is integral to any personal, social, or moral decisions we make. Scientists have found that people with damage to regions of the brain that integrate emotional signals into decision making have great difficulty reaching even simple, everyday decisions. (Kandel4, 106) In real life, we constantly make decisions with incomplete information. But we also seem to have the tendency to feel certain about these choices. The bottom line is ‘certainty’ is biologically impossible. (However), modern science incorporates the language and tools of “probability” and “statistics,” which makes uncertainty more manageable. (CampbellVA, 392) In 1945, Phineas Gage, a railroad worker, was handling explosives when a terrible accident occurred: an iron bar was driven through his skull. Before the accident, Gage… was absolutely reliable. After the accident, he was completely irresponsible. Many years after is death, Hanna and Antonio Damasio, using Gage’s skull and the iron bar, reconstructed the pathway through his brain. They realized the “prefrontal cortex” was damaged, particularly the underside, where the “ventromedial prefrontal cortex” and the “orbitofrontal cortex” are located— regions that are extremely important for emotion, decision making, and moral behavior. (Kandel4, 190-191) Studies of other people… with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex suggest that this part of the brain is very important for integrating emotional signals into decision making. (Kandel4, 194) To study how emotion affects our moral decision making, Joshua Green made use of a fascinating puzzle known as the “trolley problem.”
A runaway trolley whose brakes have failed is approaching a fork in the track at top speed. If you do nothing, the trolley will stay to the right, where it will run over five travelers. All five of them will die. However, if you divert the trolley to the left— by flipping a switch— the trolley will hit and kill one traveler. What do you do? Are you willing to intervene and change the path of the trolley?
Most people agree it is morally permissible (decision) to divert the trolley. It’s better to kill fewer people. But what about this scenario:
You are standing on a footbridge over the trolley track. You see a trolley racing out of control toward five travelers. All five travelers will die unless the trolley can be stopped. Standing next to you on the footbridge is a large man. He is leaning over the railing, watching the trolley hurtle toward the travelers. If you give the man a push, he will fall over the railing and into the path of the trolley. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley from killing the travelers. Do you push the man off the footbridge? Or, do you allow five travelers to die?
Both decisions lead to the same violent outcome, yet most people view one as moral and the other as murder. When Green asked participants (in an experimental study) whether they should divert the trolley, a network of brain regions (was activated). However, when participants were asked whether they would be willing to push a man onto the track, a separate network of brain regions was activated. These regions are associated with the processing of emotions, both for ourselves and for others. (Kandel4, 101-103)
Additive Model: systematically evaluating the important features of each alternative. For example, generating a list of the factors that are most important to you. Then, rating each alternative on each factor using an arbitrary scale. (Hockenbury, 268)
Divergent Thinking Model: (strategy in which) many possible solutions are generated in an attempt to create many possible alternatives. This type of thinking may contribute to creativity. (Bamford, 10/18/10)
Elimination by Aspects Model: evaluation of all the alternatives one characteristic at a time, typically starting with the feature you consider most important. If a particular alternative fails, you scratch it off your list. As the range of possible choices is narrowed down, you continue to compare the remaining alternatives, one feature at a time, until just one alternative is left. (Hockenbury, 268)
Force Field Analysis: used by psychologists and business advisors as a tool for helping people understand and achieve change. Based on the idea that issues are held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - “driving forces” and “restraining forces.” People wishing to make a change in their lives are encouraged to prepare a "force field diagram." (Fisher, 136)
Driving Forces: those seeking to promote change. (Fisher, 136)
Force Field Diagram: includes two columns, one containing the driving forces and one containing the restraining forces, drawn as arrows pointing in opposite directions whose lengths represent the magnitude of the force. A quick look at the diagram reveals where the major perceived issues lie. A closer look can sometimes show that the real issue has been left off entirely. In this sense, it is not so much a tool for action as an aid to insight. (Fisher, 137)
Restraining Forces: those seeking to prevent change. (Fisher, 136)
Heuristics: problem solving strategies that involve following a general rule of thumb to reduce the number of possible solutions. (Hockenbury, 265) A simple rule or set of rules for making good decisions from limited information or in a limited time span. (Fisher, 74) Rule of thumb problem solving techniques. When the problem is encountered, the ‘rule of thumb’ is applied. This approach requires no research into the problem and very little cognitive effort. (Bamford, 9/26/10)
Availability Heuristic: a strategy in which the likelihood of an event is estimated on the basis of how readily available other instances of the event are in memory. When instances of an event are easily recalled, we tend to consider the event as being more likely to occur. (Hockenbury, 269) The more easily an event can be brought to mind, the more likely one is to overestimate its incidence. Events that are reported on frequently tend to be overestimated. For example, we tend to overestimate the likelihood of murder, terrorists attacks, and lightning strikes. We tend to underestimate the likelihood of heart disease, diabetes, asthma, and breast cancer. (Bamford, 10/18/10)
Imitate the Majority: take the course of action that the majority of your peer group is taking. (Fisher, 233)
Consensus: general agreement or collective opinion; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. (MeSH)
Imitate the Successful: follow the example of those who have succeeded. This strategy is likely to succeed only if you have the same qualities that the successful person you are imitating has. (Fisher, 233)
Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is probably correct. (Eagleman, 222)
Representativeness Heuristic: a strategy in which the likelihood of an event is estimated, by comparing how similar it is to the (typical example) of the event. (Hockenbury, 269) For example, (in discerning if Kai is a waitress or a librarian), we might make the assumption that Kai is a librarian because she fits our stereotype of a librarian (quiet, wears glasses, likes to read). (However), there are more waitresses than librarians (by a factor of at least 10:1), so in all likelihood Kai is a waitress. (Bamford, 10/18/10)
Spread Your Bets Evenly: instead of choosing one alternative over another, allocate your resources equally to each. For example, stock market diversification of assets. (Fisher, 232)
Take the Do-Nothing Default: if there is a default option to do nothing, then do nothing (Fisher, 232)
Tit-for-Tat: in a situation where there is a choice between cooperation and noncooperation and the situation is likely to come up in the future, cooperate on the first encounter. In subsequent encounters, do whatever the other party did during the first encounter. If they cooperated, keep cooperating. If they didn’t cooperate, stop cooperating. (Fisher, 233)
Law of Least Effort: asserts that if there are several ways of achieving the same goal, people will eventually gravitate to the least demanding course of action. Applies to “cognitive” as well as physical exertion. (Kahneman, 35)
Single Feature Model: choice among many alternatives (is simplified by) basing the decision on a single feature. When the decision is a minor one, the single-feature model can be a good decision-making strategy. (Hockenbury, 268)
Ulysses Contract: freely made decisions that bind you in the future. Often arises in the context of medical decision making. (For example), when a person in good health signs an advance medical directive to (terminate life support) in the event of a “coma.” (Eagleman, 121-122)