Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Judgment & Decision making > Tentamen > Flashcards

Tentamen Flashcards

1
Q

Normative

A

How people should be making judgments and decisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Descriptive

A

How people actually make judgments and decisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Prescriptive

A

Practical suggestions on designing judgment and decision-making processes based on normative and descriptive models.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Normative decisionmaking process

A
  1. Define the problem
  2. Identify the criteria
  3. Weigh the criteria
  4. Generate alternatives
  5. Rate each alternative on each criterion
  6. Compute optimal decision
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

System 1 thinking

A

intuitive, fast automatic, emotional, effortless system of decision making.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

System 2 thinking

A

slow, effortful, conscious, explicit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Accessibility

A

How easily something comes to mind – easily accessible perceptions from S1 have disproportionate weight on our judgments and decisions

Cognitive ease feels good – cognitive dissonance (doubt and uncertainty) are difficult and feel bad.

Determinants: perceptual salience, surprisingness, familiarity, when things are associated with emotion, with potential losses, in line with our current mindset.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Heuristics

A

Instead of answering a difficult question using S2, our first impulse is using S1 for easy accessible answer. Difficult questions are substituted for easier ones. Simple procedures to find adequate, often imperfect, answers to difficult questions. Simplified decisionmaker.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Types of Heuristics

A
  • availability – things that come to mind easier are judged more likely
    - representativeness – judgments influenced by how typical something is in its category
    - confirmation – judgment influenced by what we expect
    - affect – judgment affected by emotions.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Utility

A

Whatever is maximized – normative models do not tell what to maximize, they tell what we
should be doing to maximize whatever it is that we try to maximize.
humans are assumed to have utility functions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Utility transitiity

A

A>B, B>C, then A>C

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Connectedness

A

A>B, A<b></b>

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

EUT

A

Expected utility theory - choose option with highest EU - EU = utility of outcome * probability of outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bayes’ s theorem

A

P(A|B) = ( P(B|A) x P(A) ) / P(B)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Risk neutral

A

Utility increases with wealth at constant rate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Risk aversion

A

Utility increases with wealth, but at a decreasing rate.
Concave, this implies risk aversion.
Value a sure thing higher than a risky thing, even if expected value is the same
incorporated in Expected Utility Theory – common assumption
Level risk aversion varies between individuals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Prospect theory

A

We hate uncertainty, unless it enables us to see a path out of a bad situation.
risk averse dealing with gains, risk seeking dealing with losses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

The certainty effect

A

outcomes that are almost, but not entirely, certain are given less weight than their probability justifies.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

The possibility effect

A

Highly unlikely outcomes are given more weight than their probability justifies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Ambiguity Aversion

A

the Ellsberg paradox: we are willing to pay less for a vague choice than for a clear choice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

The endowment effect

A

We attach higher value to things that we own than to things that we do not own. - Loss aversion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Framing

A

The concept of framing is about presenting something as a gain or a loss
Tom Sawyer – framing an unpleasant task as a privilege or unique opportunity.
Negative formulation leads more often to risk seeking, positive to risk aversion.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Mental accounting

A

Refers to a set of cognitive processes

Use of mental accounts – people tend to have different accounts in their mind. Different accounts have different purposes. Transferring funds between accounts feels wrong. Gains and losses feel different, depending on which account they are booked.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Transaction utility

A

Individuals not only derive utility from a product itself, but also from the ‘deal’ through which they acquired the product. How much they are prepared to pay for a product depends on how good the deal is that they feel they are getting.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Bounded rationallity

A

use a subset of the information that is available to us.
Use this info insufficiently, incorrectly or biased.
We solve a simplified version of the problem, don’t optimize but satisfice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Awareness and Attention

A

Info enters our brain via our senses – brain’s capacity for processing info is limited.
To reach the brain’s working memory: info needs to be attended to.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Memory

A

Some info that reaches our working memory eventually makes it into our long term memory
Info stored in long-term memory can later be called upon.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Bottom up

A

What happens to catch our attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Top down

A

What we expect to hope and see

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Selective attention - Inattentional Blindness

A

Hiding in plain sight when focusing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Selective attention - Change Blindness

A

Failure to notice change, not interesting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Presentation formats

A

Presentation of info determines attention (colors, fonts, pics)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Serial Positioning

A

The order in which items are presented affects attention/weight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Primacy effect

A

First item gets more attention / anchor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Recency effect

A

Last item get more attention - occupy working memory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Anchoring

A

When estimating, we start out from something we know and

adjust afterwards.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Menu effects

A

Choices depend on available alternatives

Joint vs separate evaluations

38
Q

Choice architecture

A

Use knowledge about presentation formats, menu effects etc.
to structure decision processes – let people make better
decisions.

39
Q

Language effects

A

Readability, jargon, sentiment, textual analysis
fog index = 0.4* avg nr of words per sentence * % words with
more than 2 syllables.

40
Q

Halo effect

A

Salient positive characteristic overwhelms other characteristics,
has a disproportionately large effect on beliefs / judgments.
Similar: warm glow, horn effect (opposite), spill over effect
(judgment spills over to other unrelated characteristics)

41
Q

Representativeness

A

Intuition for probabilities often wrong – probability judgments
influence by how typical something is for its category.
Tend to over / under estimate – insensitive to base rate and
sample size.

42
Q

Conjunction fallacy

A

More specific but typical outcomes judged more likely than general outcomes influencing a specific one

43
Q

Gamble’s fallacy

A

the mistaken belief that if something happens more

frequently than normal, it will happen less frequent in future

44
Q

Hot Hand fallacy

A

mistaken belief that a person who has experienced
success with a random event has greater change of further
success in additional attempts.

45
Q

Pattern recognition

A

Our brains see pattern everywhere – focus on cause and effect
In the long term – everything regression to the mean.

46
Q

Survirorship fallacy

A

The mistaken belief that because someone or
something survives it must necessarily be better or have specific
unique characteristics.

47
Q

Matthew effect

A

through a positive feedback loop randomly selected

early winners become more and more successful.

48
Q

Confirmation bias

A

Search for and give more weight to new info that confirms our existing beliefs than info that disconfirms our beliefs. People often hold on to their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence – own opinion more important than science.

49
Q

Motivated reasoning

A

Develop stories or rationalizations that enable you to ignore or discredit disconfirming evidence – goed praten voor jezelf

50
Q

Overconfidence

A

Overestimate our own knowledge and capabilities.

51
Q

Overprecision

A

too certain about own accuracy

52
Q

Overestimation

A

better/smarter/ etc than actually are (Planning
fallacy, realistic plans tend to be optimistic, incentives play role
(Conjunctive event bias – tend to over(under)estimate
probability of con(dis)junctive events).

53
Q

Overplacement

A

Falsley think we are better than others in certain dimensions.

54
Q

Hindsight bias

A

Failure to disregard subsequently acquired knowledge when judging a past event/decision – incorrect feeling you knew it all along.

55
Q

Outcome effect

A

Evaluations of past decisions affected by how things worked out

56
Q

Decision Myopia

A

Bounded awareness – answering using S1 – not carefully considering problem

57
Q

Status quo

A

Tendency to maintain current situation

58
Q

Omission / Commission bias

A

Acting feels worse than not acting, even if the outcomes are the same

59
Q

Regret aversion

A

Tendency to avoid taking actions we might regret

60
Q

Sunk cost fallacy

A

When making decisions based on sunk cost, despite evidence that the cost of continuing outweighs the expected benefit.

61
Q

Escalation of commitment

A

Pattern of behaviour in which a group or individual will
continue to rationalize their decisions, actions, and investments when faced with increasingly negative outcomes, rather than alter their course.

62
Q

Cognitive psychology

A

S1, S2, biases and heuristics

63
Q

Social psychology

A

Norms and preferences

64
Q

Social norms

A

Rules and standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide or constrain social behaviours without the force of law.

65
Q

The bystander effect

A

The probability of taking action to help someone in trouble is inversely related to the nr of bystanders - diffusion of responsibility

66
Q

Social preferences

A
  • People tend to care what happens to others, not completely selfish.
  • Fairness: most people care about it, what is fair is a social norm. There might be biased perceptions of fairness.
  • Reciprocity: In our interaction with others, we tend to act as bookkeepers – different accounts for different individuals. In general: kind to people who are kind to us, unkind to people who are kind to us (or others).
  • Many relationships: characterized by gift exchange (higher wage leads to higher effort, less employee theft, more whistleblowing)
  • Trust – facilitates collaboration and value creation – trusting someone is risky – for management important to find a balance between trust and control.
67
Q

Cooperation and competition

A

Presence of other humans does not only promote

cooperation, it also induces competition. Fundamental forces in any form of human organization.

68
Q

In groups and out groups

A

Us vs Them – hard wired distinction – cooperation with
in, competition with out. Corporate culture /
professional identity. Prejudice and discrimination -
NIH.

69
Q

Status

A

Compare ourselves with ‘them’ – concern about relative

rank – winners/losers.

70
Q

Source of pride and shame

A

Achievement of target – goal setting theory. How difficult do you set your targets?
Dangers of targets:
Short termism, narrow focus, risk taking, negative
attitudes when missed, less learning, lower willingness
to cooperate, unethical behaviour and fraud.

71
Q

Gamification

A

integrate gaming elements in mundane tasks – employee
earns points which lead to awards or redeemed for non-
cash rewards – Mental accounting
Exploit peoples utility for winning.

72
Q

Consequentialist

A

Focus on outcomes, maximize total welfare,

utilitarianism

73
Q

Deontological

A

Focus on rights and duties, actions can be right or

wrong, independent of their consequences (intention)

74
Q

Philosophy of normative models

A

Consequentialist and Deontological

75
Q

Rational choice model (of crime)

A

Gary Becker – moral dimension is irrelevant – the
decision to engage in crime is the result of a trade-off
of expected costs and benefits.

76
Q

Fraud Triangle

A

Donald Cressey – Opportunity, Rationalization, Pressure

77
Q

Ethical decision making

A

Moral Awareness - Moral Judgment - Moral Intention - Moral Action

78
Q

Ethical decision making based on three assumptions

A

Awareness needed for a decision to have moral implications
– often fail to recognize
Behavioural intentions follow from reasoning
- intentions do not follow from thorough reasoned judgment
Moral action requires moral intention
– actions often do not follow from clear intention to act in a certain way.

79
Q

Contemporary behavioural ethics

A
  • neither purely selfish nor purely ethical.
    - care for ourselves, but also if actions affect others /
    violate injunctive (group) social norms.
    - cognitive limitations and ability to fool ourselves –
    allow us to act more selfishly than we find ethical -
    bounded ethicality.
80
Q

Bounded ethicality

A

The systematic and predictable psychological processes that lead people to engage in self-serving but ethically questionable behaviours – parallel with bounded rationality. You lie steal deceive as long as we retain our self-image of an honest and decent person.

81
Q

Overclaiming credit

A

Overconfidence, attribution bias

82
Q

In-group favouritism

A

doing favours in group harms out-group - wij vs zij

83
Q

Implicit attitude

A

halo bias – more salary because you are tall.

84
Q

Social pressure

A

‘just doing my work’, if everyone does it easier to say yourself its okay

85
Q

Framing & Motivated reasoning

A

focus on favourable comparisons, always good excuse

86
Q

Sacred values

A

certain behaviours go against deeply felt values or principles – things do not
necessarily have a negative consequence.

87
Q

Motivated blindness

A

deliberately look the other way when someone take immoral actions that benefit us – Moral wiggle room – ignore info to avoid feeling bad.

88
Q

Indirect unethical behavior

A

delegate decision weakens perceived responsibility.

89
Q

Moral Cleansing

A

Compensate bad behavior with good behaviour to restore self-image

90
Q

Moral Licensing

A

using your good behaviour in the past as an excuse to allow yourself
bad behaviour now.

91
Q

Improving decision making - 7 Strategies

A
  1. Use of decision analysis tools – linear models, algorithms, artificial intelligence
  2. Acquire expertise – learning / experience typically improve decisions
  3. Debiasing – unfreeze – change – refreeze. (use S2).
  4. Reason analogically – reflect on and frame decisions at higher level of abstraction
  5. Take outsiders view – place yourself in shoes of independent observer or take advice
  6. Understand biases in others
  7. Nudge – redesign so that S1 thinking leads to better outcomes.

Judgment & Decision making (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions