scholarly journals How Behavioral Economics and Nudges Could Help Diminish Irrationality in Suicide-Related Decisions

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian W. Bauer ◽  
Daniel W. Capron
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Suicide Attempt ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Computational Power ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
New Evidence

People regularly make decisions that are not aligned with their own self-interests. These irrational decisions often stem from humans having bounded rationality (e.g., limited computational power), which produces reliable cognitive biases that occur outside of people’s awareness and influences the decisions people make. There are many important decisions leading up to a suicide attempt, and it is likely that these same biases exist within suicide-related decisions. This article presents an argument for the likely existence of cognitive biases within suicide-related decision making and how they may influence people to make irrational decisions. In addition, this article provides new evidence for using a behavioral economic intervention—nudges—as a potential way to combat rising suicide rates. We explore how nudges can help increase means safety, disseminate suicide prevention skills/materials, diminish well-known biases (e.g., confirmation bias), and uncover biases that may be occurring when making suicide-related decisions.

Confirmation bias in decision making for fingerprints, DNA and eyewitness evidence cannot be explained by cognitive style or thinking dispositions.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Edgcumbe
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Style ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Thinking Dispositions ◽  
Evaluation Of Evidence ◽  
Facial Composite

Pre-existing beliefs about the background or guilt of a suspect can bias the subsequent evaluation of evidence for forensic examiners and lay people alike. This biasing effect, called the confirmation bias, has influenced legal proceedings in prominent court cases such as that of Brandon Mayfield. Today many forensic providers attempt to train their examiners against these cognitive biases. Nine hundred and forty-two participants read a fictional criminal case and received either neutral, incriminating or exonerating evidence (fingerprint, eyewitness, or DNA) before providing an initial rating of guilt. Participants then viewed ambiguous evidence (alibi, facial composite, handwriting sample or informant statement) before providing a final rating of guilt. Final guilt ratings were higher for all evidence conditions (neutral, incriminating or exonerating) following exposure to the ambiguous evidence. This provides evidence that the confirmation bias influences the evaluation of evidence.

Economics and Epicycles

2020 ◽  
pp. 174569162095378
Author(s):  
Satoshi Kanazawa
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Human Behavior ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Human Actors ◽  
Economic Studies

I aver that standard economics as a model of human behavior is as incorrect in 2017 (after Thaler) as geocentrism was as a model of celestial behavior in 1617 (after Galileo). Behavioral economic studies that have exposed the paradoxes and anomalies in standard economics are akin to epicycles on geocentrism. Just as no amount of epicycles could salvage geocentrism as a model of celestial behavior because it was fundamentally incorrect, no amount of behavioral economic adjustments could salvage standard economics as a model of human behavior because it is fundamentally incorrect. Many of the cognitive biases exhibited by humans are shared by other species, so not only are human actors Humans (as opposed to Econs), but nonhuman animals as phylogenetically distant from humans as ants and locusts are also Humans. Evolutionary biology as a model of human behavior can explain many of the hitherto unexplained cognitive biases and provide a unifying model of human behavior currently lacking in behavioral economics.

Cognitive Biases in Decision Making in Post-Bureaucratic Organizations

2017 ◽  
pp. 358-382
Author(s):  
Marie-Therese Claes ◽  
Thibault Jacquemin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Bureaucratic Organization ◽  
System 2 ◽  
System 1

In today's post-bureaucratic organization, where decision-making is decentralized, most managers are confronted with highly complex situations where time-constraint and availability of information makes the decision-making process essential. Studies show that a great amount of decisions are not taken after a rational decision-making process but rather rely on instinct, emotion or quickly processed information. After briefly describing the journey of thoughts from Rational Choice Theory to the emergence of Behavioral Economics, this chapter will elaborate on the mechanisms that are at play in decision-making in an attempt to understand the root causes of cognitive biases, using the theory of Kahneman's (2011) System 1 and System 2. It will discuss the linkage between the complexity of decision-making and post-bureaucratic organization.

scholarly journals The Value of Behavioral Economics for EU Judicial Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-264
Author(s):  
Christoph K. Winter
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Hindsight Bias ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Cognitive Illusions ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis Article analyzes the value of behavioral economics for EU judicial decision-making. The first part introduces the foundations of behavioral economics by focusing on cognitive illusions, prospect theory, and the underlying distinction between different processes of thought. The second part examines the influence of selected biases and heuristics, namely the anchoring effect, availability bias, zero-risk bias, and hindsight bias on diverse legal issues in EU law including, among others, the scope of the fundamental freedoms, the proportionality test as well as the roles of the Advocate General and Reporting Judge. The Article outlines how behavioral economic findings can be taken into account to improve judicial decision-making. Accordingly, the adaptation of judicial training concerning cognitive illusions, the establishment of a de minimis rule regarding the scope of the fundamental freedoms, and the use of economic models when determining the impact of certain measures on fundamental freedoms is suggested. Finally, an “unbiased jury” concentrating exclusively on specific factual issues such as causal connections within the proportionality test is necessary, if the hindsight bias is to be avoided. While it is of great importance to take behavioral economic findings into account, judicial decision-making is unlikely to become flawless based on natural intelligence. Despite bearing fundamental risks, artificial intelligence may provide means to achieve greater fairness, consistency, and legal certainty in the future.

Overcoming Confirmation and Blind Spot Biases When Communicating Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Kenski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Process Information ◽  
Bias Blind Spot

This chapter focuses on two biases that lead people away from evaluating evidence and scientific studies impartially—confirmation bias and bias blind spot. The chapter first discusses different ways in which people process information and reviews the costs and benefits of utilizing cognitive shortcuts in decision making. Next, two common cognitive biases, confirmation bias and bias blind spot, are explained. Then the literature on “debiasing” is explored. Finally, the implications of confirmation bias and bias blind spot in the context of communicating about science are examined, and an agenda for future research on understanding and mitigating these biases is offered.

scholarly journals The Measurement of Individual Differences in Cognitive Biases: A Review and Improvement

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Berthet
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Generic Measures

Individual differences have been neglected in decision-making research on heuristics and cognitive biases. Addressing that issue requires having reliable measures. The author first reviewed the research on the measurement of individual differences in cognitive biases. While reliable measures of a dozen biases are currently available, our review revealed that some measures require improvement and measures of other key biases are still lacking (e.g., confirmation bias). We then conducted empirical work showing that adjustments produced a significant improvement of some measures and that confirmation bias can be reliably measured. Overall, our review and findings highlight that the measurement of individual differences in cognitive biases is still in its infancy. In particular, we suggest that contextualized (in addition to generic) measures need to be improved or developed.

Bounded Rationality, Behavioral Economics, and the Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Jolls
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Behavioural Economics ◽  
Applied Economics ◽  
Legal Rule ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
System Knowledge

Behavioural economics has become a leading force in applied economics, including in economic analysis of law. At the heart of behavioural economics is the concept of bounded rationality. Bounded rationality suggests that humans face important limitations in knowledge and decision-making capability. Such limitations have clear importance to both the understanding and the improvement of the legal system. Knowledge limitations present a particularly compelling area for legal analysis. Two case studies of debiasing through law in response to knowledge limitations reveal the potential mechanisms by which law may ease such limitations among boundedly rational actors. In such cases of debiasing through law, empirical evidence plays a pivotal role, as this evidence both identifies the existence of knowledge limitations in the first instance and provides a means by which to assess whether a given legal rule allays such limitations.

scholarly journals A behavioral economics perspective on the COVID-19 vaccine amid public mistrust

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Londeree Saleska ◽  
Kristen R Choi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Vaccine Decision Making ◽  
To Receive

Abstract The COVID-19 vaccine development, testing, and approval processes have moved forward with unprecedented speed in 2020. Although several vaccine candidates have shown promising results in clinical trials, resulting in expedited approval for public use from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, recent polls suggest that Americans strongly distrust the vaccine and its approval process. This mistrust stems from both the unusual speed of vaccine development and reports about side effects. This article applies insights from behavioral economics to consider how the general public may make decisions around whether or not to receive a future COVID-19 vaccine in a context of frequent side effects and preexisting mistrust. Three common cognitive biases shown to influence human decision-making under a behavioral economics framework are considered: confirmation bias, negativity bias, and optimism bias. Applying a behavioral economics framework to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making can elucidate potential barriers to vaccine uptake and points of intervention for clinicians and public health professionals.

Decision-Based Disorders

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren K. Bickel ◽  
Derek A. Pope ◽  
Lara N. Moody ◽  
Sarah E. Snider ◽  
Liqa N. Athamneh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Behavior ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Delay Discounting ◽  
Poor Health ◽  
Behavioral Patterns ◽  
Behavioral Economic ◽  
Economic Framework ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Unhealthy Behavior

Dysfunctional health behavior is a contemporary challenge, exemplified by the increasingly significant portion of health problems stemming from people’s own behavior and decision making. The challenge not only includes the direct consequences of unhealthy behavioral patterns but also their origins and the creation of policies that effectively decrease their frequency. A framework rooted in behavioral economics identifies the processes and mechanisms underlying poor health. Two behavioral economic processes, economic demand and delay discounting, are discussed in detail. Through continued development, this behavioral economic framework can guide improved outcomes in treatment and policies related to dysfunctional health behavior. Approaches are evolving to alter demand and discounting. Current and prospective policies aimed at decreasing unhealthy behavior may profit from such research.

scholarly journals Using Design Thinking to improve Strategic Decisions during Collaborative Sensemaking

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikko KORIA ◽  
Ekaterina KOTINA ◽  
Sharon PRENDEVILLE
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Cognitive Limitations ◽  
Collaborative Sensemaking

Human cognitive limitations affect strategic decision-making. One of such effects is emergence of cognitive biases, deviations from rationality in judgment. These biases can negatively influence an organisation's capability to capture and utilize new ideas, thus inhibiting innovation. Researchers have documented different strategies for mitigating cognitive biases – and many of them overlap with the ones emphasised in design thinking. However, research so far does not offer any specific “recipes” for mitigation of cognitive biases. This paper links together research on challenges of strategic decision-making, cognitive biases and design thinking. The paper investigates the effects of applying design-thinking tool in collaborative sensemaking stage, within a small business team, aiming to mitigate confirmation bias. The study indicated that newly introduced design-thinking tools did not have the expected positive influence on decision-making. The research contributes to the field by developing a new framework on how to identify and mitigate confirmation bias in strategic decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document