Advertisement

Cognitive Biases Affect the Acceptance of Tradeoff Studies

  • Eric D. Smith
  • Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini
  • Terry Bahill
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 21)

Tradeoff studies involving human subjective calibration and data updating are often distrusted by decision makers. A review of objectivity and subjectivity in decision making confirms that prospect theory is a good model for actual human decision making. Relationships between tradeoff studies and the elements of experiments in judgment and decision making show that tradeoff studies are susceptible to human cognitive biases. Examples of relevant biases are given. Knowledge of these biases should help give decision makers more confidence in tradeoff studies.

Keywords

Cognitive Bias Prospect Theory Ambiguity Aversion Human Decision Process Probability Weighting Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. T. Bahill. Risk analysis of a pinewood derby, http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/slides/risk.ppt. Last accessed January 2008.
  2. 2.
    A. T. Bahill. Tradeoff Studies: A Systems Engineering Skills Course. BAE Systems, San Diego, 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. R. Beach and T. Connolly. The Psychology of Decision Making: People in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Brown. Rational Choice and Judgment: Decision Analysis for the Decider. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. G. Chase and H. A. Simon. Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4:55–81, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Clausen and D. D. Frey. Improving system reliability by failure-mode avoidance including four concept design strategies. Systems Engineering, 8:245–261, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CMMI. Capability maturity model integration. Software Engineering Institute: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/. Last accessed January 2008.
  8. 8.
    J. Daniels, P. W. Werner, and A. T. Bahill. Quantitative methods for tradeoff analyses. Systems Engineering, 4:190–212, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DAR. DAR basics: Applying decision analysis and resolution in the real world, 2004. Software Engineering Institute: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/presentations/sepg04.presentations/dar.pdf. Last accessed January 2008.
  10. 10.
    J. H. Davis. Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80:97–125, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. D. De Groot. Thought and Choice in Chess. Mouton, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1965.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doing tradeoff studies with multicriterion decision making techniques. http://www.incose.org.uk/incose99/tutt05.htm. Last accessed January 2008.
  13. 13.
    A. Eddington. Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1923.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Edwards. An attempt to predict gambling decisions. In J. W. Dunlap, editor, Mathematical Models of Human Behavior, pages 12–32. Dunlap and Associates, Stamford, CT, 1955.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Edwards. Conservatism in human information processing. In B. Kleinmuntz, editor, Formal Representation of Human Judgment, pages 17–52. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Ellsberg. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75:643–669, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Ellsberg. Risk, ambiguity, and decision. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1962.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. R. Fox and A. Tversky. Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110:585–603, 1995.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. R. Fox and M. Weber. Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88:476–498, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Gigerenzer. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond heuristics and biases. European Review of Social Psychology, 2:83–115, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. Gigerenzer and R. Selten, editors. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, and T. A. R. Group. Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart. Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Gladwell. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. Little Brown, New York, 2005.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Griffin and A. Tversky. The weighting of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24:411–435, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. S. Hammond, R. L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa. Best of HBR: The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 84:118–126, 2006.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    E. J. Johnson, J. Hershey, J. Meszaros, and H. Kunreuther. Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7:35–51, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47:263–291, 1979.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, and L. D. Phillips. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, editors, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pages 306–334. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    List of cognitive biases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases. Last accessed January 2008.
  30. 30.
    R. D. Luce. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley, New York, 1959.MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    G. A. Miller. The magic number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63:81–87, 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Piattelli-Palmarini. Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule our Minds. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Piattelli-Palmarini. Knowledge of probability. Graduate seminar on the foundations of judgment and decision making, The University of Arizona, Tucson, 2005.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pinewood Derby tradeoff study. http://www.sie.arizona.edu/MURI/software.html. Last accessed January 2008.
  35. 35.
    S. Plous. The nuclear arms race: Prisoner’s dilemma or perceptual dilemma? Journal of Peace Research, 30:163–179, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    D. Prelec. The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66:497–527, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. Saariluoma. Chess players search for task relevant cues: Are chunks relevant? In D. Brogan, editor, Visual Search. Taylor & Francis, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    L. J. Savage. The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York, 1954.MATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    N. Schwarz. Assessing frequency reports of mundane behaviors: Contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 11:98–119, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Shafir, editor. Preferences, Belief and Similarity: Selected Writings. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R. N. Shepard. On the subjective optimum selection among multiattribute alternatives. In M. W. Shelly and G. L. Bryan, editors, Human Judgments and Optimality. Wiley, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    R. A. Shweder. Likeness and likelihood in everyday thought: Magical thinking in judgments about personality. Current Anthropology, 18:637–648, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    E. D. Smith. Tradeoff studies and cognitive biases. PhD thesis, Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, 2006.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    L. L. Thurstone. The Measurement of Values. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1959.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79:281–299, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76:105–110, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Extensional vs. intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90:293–315, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26:297–323, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    A. Tversky and E. Shafir. The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3:305–309, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    W. A. Wickelgren. How to Solve Problems: Elements of a Theory of Problems and Problem Solving. Freeman, San Francisco, 1974.MATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    A. W. Wymore. Model-based Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric D. Smith
    • 1
  • Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini
    • 2
  • Terry Bahill
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Engineering Management and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Missouri at RollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management and PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations