~~The Confirming-Evidence Trap~~
This trap is the bias that leads us to seek out information to support our
existing point of view while avoiding information that contradicts it. This
bias not only affects where we go to collect evidence to reinforce a
current stance or perspective, but also how we interpret the evidence we
receive, leading us to give too much weight to supporting information and
opinions and too little to those that are conflicting.
In one study of this phenomenon, two groups -- one opposed to and one
supporting capital punishment -- each read two reports of carefully
conducted research on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent
to crime. One report concluded that it was effective, the other that it was
not. Despite being exposed to solid scientific information supporting
counter-arguments, the members of both groups became even more convinced of
the validity of their own positions after reading both reports.
Two fundamental and extraordinarily powerful psychological forces are at
work here. Please read the next two sentences twice, as they describe two
of the most subtle and pervasive ways we let our rush of first emotions
bias our better, more balanced judgment. The first is our tendency to
subconsciously decide what we want to do before we figure out why we want
to do it. The second is our inclination to be more engaged by things we
like than by things we dislike -- a tendency well documented, even in babies.
What can you do about these traps? Always check to see whether you are
examining all the evidence with equal rigor. Avoid the tendency to accept
confirming evidence without question. Get someone you respect to play
devil's advocate, or build the counter-arguments yourself. What's the
strongest reason to make a different choice? The second strongest? The third?
Be honest with yourself about your motives. Are you really gathering
information to help you make a smart choice, or are you just looking for
evidence confirming what you think you want to do? In seeking advice from
others, don't ask leading questions that make your decision-making
inclination evident. Make sure the people from whom you want perspective
are not biased by your views and can offer you truly independent
information and opinions.
~~The Framing Trap~~
How you make a decision is often determined by how you view your choices or
how you frame the questions around it. For example, to reduce insurance
costs, the neighboring states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania made similar
changes in their laws. Each state gave drivers a new option: By accepting a
limited right to sue, drivers could lower their premiums. But the two
states framed the choices very differently, and how the state officials
framed the vehicle owners' choices for insurance costs made a $200 million
difference in how the drivers in one state chose to pay versus those in the
other state.
In New Jersey, you automatically got the limited right to sue unless you
specified otherwise. In Pennsylvania, you got the full right to sue unless
you specified otherwise. As a result, about 80% of drivers in New Jersey
chose the limited right to sue, but only 25% in Pennsylvania. A frame can
establish the "status quo" or introduce an "anchor." It can lead you to
"justify past actions" or highlight confirming evidence. Two kinds of
frames can distort decision-making with startling frequency.
~~Frame As a Gain or As a Loss~~
People are risk averse and will look for reasons to turn down or avoid a
decision where a loss, however small, is possible -- even if a larger
chance exists for an upside gain. People also tend to adopt the framing of
the situation as it is presented to them, rather than restating the problem
in their own way. Don't automatically accept the initial frame, whether you
or someone else created it. Try to reframe the problem or opportunity in
several ways to see it from different sides and envision different
potential outcomes. Also try posing decision-making situations in a neutral
way that combines gains and losses or embraces different reference points.
Throughout the decision-making process, ask yourself how your thinking
might change if the framing changed.
~~Estimating and Forecasting Traps~~
We are all fairly good at estimating time, volume, distance, and weight,
because we make such decisions frequently and get quick feedback about our
accuracy. We are less experienced (and get less verification) when deciding
on less certain forecasts. Weather forecasters and bookmakers have
opportunities and incentives to maintain a record of their judgments to see
when they have been accurate and to plan to replicate the accurate
reasoning in their next decision. We make mistakes in estimating and
forecasting in one of the following three ways:
1. The Overconfidence Trap~~
We believe we are better at making forecasts or estimates than we actually
are. In one series of tests, people were asked to forecast the next week's
closing value for the Dow Jones Industrial Average. To account for
uncertainty, they were then asked to estimate a range within which the
closing value would likely fall. In picking the top number of the range,
they were asked to choose a high estimate they thought had only a 1% chance
of being exceeded by the closing value. Similarly, for the bottom end, they
were told to pick a low estimate for which they thought there would be only
a 1% chance that the closing value would fall lower. If they were good at
judging their forecasting accuracy, you'd expect the participants to be
wrong only about 2% of the time, but hundreds of tests have shown that the
actual Dow Jones averages fell outside the forecast ranges 20% to 30% of
the time. Overly confident about their ability to predict, most people set
too narrow a range of possibilities.
2. The Prudence Trap
People are often overly cautious or prudent in forecasting. When faced with
high-stakes decisions, we tend to adjust our estimates or forecasts "just
to be on the safe side." An extreme example is the "worst-case scenario
analysis" once popular in the design of weapons systems and still used in
certain engineering and regulatory settings. Using this approach, engineers
designed weapons to operate under the worst possible combination of
circumstances, even though the odds of those circumstances actually coming
to pass were infinitesimal.
3. The Recallability Trap
Even if we are neither too confident nor unduly prudent, we can fall into a
trap when making estimates or forecasts. Because we frequently base our
predictions about the future on our memories of the past, we can be overly
influenced by dramatic events -- those that leave a strong impression on
us. We all, for example, exaggerate the probability of rare but
catastrophic occurrences such as plane crashes because they get
disproportionate attention in the media. A dramatic or traumatic event in
your own life will distort your thinking forever. You will assign a higher
probability that similar things might happen to you and to others in the
future.
To minimize the distortion caused by variations in recallability, carefully
examine all of your assumptions. Many of these traps work, not in
isolation, but in concert with each other, thus amplifying their power to
distort. When we make a fast decision, thinking we are relying on gut
instincts, we are often falling into a trap.
Before you spend too much time actually making a decision, take time to
review how you are making it. Don't get emotionally attached to one outcome
before you're sure your decision-making process serves you well.
One way I've made these traps familiar to me so I'll recognize them in my
own thinking has been to see them in situations around me. I teach a
monthly lesson to four graders at our nearby school here in Sausalito. The
students have already become adept and gleeful at showing examples of these
traps to their parents. As I have been writing these two columns over the
past three weeks, I've noticed how pervasive these decision-making traps
are in my life. I've seen them influencing us in advertisements. I've
started to discount valid information from someone I distrust. I've seen a
client refuse to change course in the face of his subordinates' compelling
case to do so. I've even read vivid examples of all the traps in Elizabeth
George's current mystery book, Deception on His Mind. Please email me
(mailto:kare@sayitbetter.com) examples of the traps you find so I can share them
in a future column.
Getting What You Want : How to Reach Agreement and Resolve Conflict Every Time
Gut instincts expert, author, and speaker Kare Anderson is an upbeat conference opener or closing keynoter.
Her warmth, memorably titled tips such as "Go Slow to Go
Fast," dry wit, and frequent references to the situations of
hottest interest to attendees, cause people to leave laughing
and talking about what they've heard.
Learn ways to "Say It Better" in how you speak, appear, write, and
create the work and other settings of your life. Whether you want to
learn ways to lead, persuade, negotiate, sell, resolve conflict, or design
a compelling physical setting, Say it Better is the place to visit again
and again to see the latest ideas from our growing list of expert
contributors.
SAY IT BETTER
15 Sausalito Blvd.
Sausalito, CA 94954-2464.
http://www.sayitbetter.com
KARE ANDERSON : kare@sayitbetter.com
Learn how to operate a profitable business on the internet. Our courses are created with gotta-have information by top experts. 
This database consists of newsletter publishers such as yourself open to swapping ad space within their publication. Join forces to obtain a greater marketing reach at no cost.
Read over 200 comments on what your peers think are the important elements to entrepreneurial success in the future. 
Recommend this page