Thinking and Decision Making (Tversky & Kahneman and Englich & Mussweiler)

Question 1

Introduction (Thinking is the process of using knowledge and information to interpret and make decisions about the world around us. One theory…)
DUAL PROCESSING, ANCHORING BIAS, S1 & S2 THINKING

Answer 1

Thinking is the process of using knowledge and information to interpret and make decisions about the world around us. One theory of thinking and decision-making is the Dual Processing Model. This theory (Stanovich and West) suggests that we have two very distinct ways of thinking in response to receiving info and carrying out tasks- System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 thinking is rapid, easy, and often uses heuristics or “mental shortcuts”(anchoring bias: relying on pre-conceptual info) but is often prone to errors. System 2 thinking is much slower and intentional.

Question 2

Anchoring bias

Answer 2

The tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the anchor)

Question 3

Aim of Tversky & Kahneman

Answer 3

Demonstrates the effect of a high or low anchor on the final estimation of a mathematics problem

Question 4

Sample of Tversky & Kahneman

Answer 4

High school students

Question 5

Procedure of Tversky & Kahneman

Answer 5

“Ascending condition” participants were asked, in 5 seconds, to compute an estimation of the value of numbers 1-8 multiplied (1x2x3x…)

“Descending condition” participants were asked, in 5 seconds, to compute an estimation of the value of numbers 1-8 multiplied starting with 8 (8x7x6…)

Question 6

Hypothesis of Tversky & Kahneman

Answer 6

Researchers expected that the first number seen would act as the “anchoring bias”, for the ascending condition it would be 1 (low anchor), and for the descending condition it would be 8 (high anchor).

Question 7

Findings of Tversky & Kahenman

Answer 7

In ascending condition, participants gave a smaller answer due to the low anchor with a median of 512.

In the descending condition, when participants in the descending condition saw the higher anchor of 8, participants made a much larger estimate with the median being 2250.

The actual value was 4032.

Question 8

How does Tversky link to thinking and decision-making?

Answer 8

All participants were put under the conditions where they were encouraged to use their unconscious thought -> shows that S1 thinking is susceptible to biases and making irrational decisions, therefore they demonstrated the anchoring bias effect which influenced whatever conclusion came after they saw the anchor

Question 9

Strengths of Tversky & Kahneman

Answer 9

1. Easily replicable, and we can determine the reliability of this experiment because of this
2. Highly controlled experiment and since this was an experiment we can allow for a cause and effect relationship → we can say that the anchor caused the low/high estimations
3. Independent measures design eliminates the order effect

Question 10

Limitations of Tversky & Kahneman

Answer 10

1. Low ecological validity, cannot generalize to real-life situations
2. Independent measures design increases participant variability

Question 11

Aim of Englich & Mussweiler

Answer 11

Experiment to determine the effect a prosecutor’s decision on a sentence had on the decision of a jury’s final verdict based on a high or low anchor

Question 12

Sample of Englich & Mussweiler

Answer 12

Independent samples on German law students

Question 13

Procedure of Englich & Mussweiler

Answer 13

• Presented a case of alleged rape (low 2 month vs. high 34 month)
• Carried out a pilot study on senior law students who determined the average recommended sentence (17 months) that was used as the bias for forming the ‘anchors’
• Questionnaire on their opinions on the sentence, how certain, how realistic?

Question 14

Findings of Englich & Mussweiler

Answer 14

High anchoring produced a higher (10 months more) sentence.

The students marked their certainty on a scale of 1-9 (avg. of about 5) was not as strong as how realistic they thought it was (avg. of about 7)

Question 15

How does Englich & Mussweiler link to thinking and decision-making?

Answer 15

The “anchor” they were given reflected upon their decision as the students relied on S1 thinking to form their final judgements. Note: more susceptible to bias

Question 16

Strengths of Englich & Mussweiler

Answer 16

1. Highly controlled experiment and since this was an experiment we can allow for a cause and effect relationship → we can say that the anchor caused the low/high sentence estimations
2. Independent measures design eliminates the order effect
3. Control group that demonstrated S2 thinking could serve as a way of differentiating the results from the group the experiment was carried out on who used S1 thinking to form their reasoning

Question 17

Limitations of Englich & Mussweiler

Answer 17

1. Low confidence score may lead researchers to believe that they were unsure of their judgement and we could question reliability
2. The use of an independent samples design means that participant variability may have played a role in the results

Question 18

Conclusion of thinking and decision making (Both studies present the effect of anchoring bias and…)

Answer 18

Both studies present the effect of anchoring bias and had parallel results in estimations due to the effect of the anchor, which suggests that System 1 thinking is the most efficient- but most error prone- way of thinking which disregards more rational thinking which considers more possibilities (S2 thinking).