Found 8 article(s) for author 'decision making'

When waste pays: Inefficient (but seemingly fair) resource allocators receive social and economic rewards

When waste pays: Inefficient (but seemingly fair) resource allocators receive social and economic rewards. Christopher Robichaud, Jennifer Lerner, 2019, Paper, “The tension between equality and efficiency presents a cardinal trade-off in scarce resource allocation decisions. Three pre-registered experiments (N=1,095) and an independent replication (N=300) drew on the revised value pluralism model (Tetlock, Peterson, & Lerner, 1996) to predict how decision makers resolve such trade-offs. Studies 1-2 found that social observation by non-stakeholders increased allocators’ preferences for equal (yet inefficient) allocations – a finding that held even with real money and even when the efficient allocation made one party better off and no one worse off. Study 3 found that allocators who made inefficient choices received positive evaluations and monetary rewards from observers. Analyses also examined the boundary conditions for such benefits and the underlying mechanisms. Taken together, the results elucidate causal mechanisms for a fact of political life: Decision makers who make equal rather than efficient allocations can, by virtue of doing so, receive greater financial and social rewards from observers.Link

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Are New Graduates Happier Making More Money or Having More Time?

Are New Graduates Happier Making More Money or Having More Time? Ashley Whillans, July 25, 2019, Paper, “Each year across North America, millions of graduates have to make tradeoffs between time and money as they plan their next steps. Despite the importance of these choices, we know surprisingly little about how people navigate major life decisions that involve making more money at the expense of having less time, and vice versa. Researchers asked more than 1,000 graduating college students in Canada whether they generally prioritized time or money. They found that students who prioritized time at graduation were happier and more satisfied with their careers 1 to 2 years later than those who prioritized money. They explored why that might be and how factors like financial security and student debt play a role in people’s decision-making and happiness.Link

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good

Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good. Joshua D. Greene, Max Bazerman, 2019, Paper, “The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision-making by denying decision-makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options. Veil-of-ignorance reasoning was originally applied by philosophers and economists to foundational questions concerning the overall organization of society. Here we apply veil-of-ignorance reasoning in a more focused way to specific moral dilemmas, all of which involve a tension between the greater good and competing moral concerns. Across six experiments (N = 5,785), three pre-registered, we find that veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Participants first engaged in veil-of ignorance reasoning about a specific dilemma, asking themselves what they would want if they did not know who among those affected they would be. Participants then responded to a more conventional version of the same dilemma with a moral judgment, a policy preference, or an economic choice.Link

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Fretting about Modest Risks Is a Mistake

Fretting about Modest Risks Is a Mistake. Matthew Rabin, Max Bazerman, April 29, 2019, “Managers often engage in risk-averse behavior, and economists, decision analysts, and managers treat risk aversion as a preference. In many cases, acting in a risk-averse manner is a mistake, but managers can correct this mistake with greater reflection. This article provides guidance on how individuals and organizations can move toward greater reflection and a more profitable aggregate portfolio of decisions. Inconsistency in risk preferences across decisions is a costly mistake for both individuals and for organizations.Link

Tags: , , , , ,

Counting and Caring

Counting and Caring. Lawrence Summers, October 17, 2017, Paper, “The article presents the author’s views on economist Howard Raiffa who is known for his contributions to both decision sciences and negotiation analysis. Topics include the impact of Howard’s book “Decision Analysis” on the author in developing intellectual interests; and the role of his book in helping the author learn about Bayesian models and group decision making.Link

Tags: , , , , , ,

Social Influences on Policy Preferences: Conformity and Reactance

Social Influences on Policy Preferences: Conformity and Reactance. Cass Sunstein, December 7, 2016, Paper, “Social norms have been used to nudge people toward specified outcomes in various domains. But can people be nudged to support, or to reject, proposed government policies? How do people’s views change when they learn that the majority approves of a particular policy, or that the majority opposes it? To answer these questions, we conducted a series of experiments. We find that in important contexts, learning about the majority’s opinion causes a significant shift toward support for or opposition to particular policies. At the same time, we find that when people’s views are fixed and firm, they are unlikely to conform to the majority’s view and that they might even show reactance.Link

Tags: , , , , , , ,

When Performance Trumps Gender Bias. Joint Versus Separate Evaluation

When Performance Trumps Gender Bias. Joint Versus Separate Evaluation. Iris Bohnet, May 2016, Paper, “We examine a new intervention to overcome gender biases in hiring, promotion, and job assignments: an “evaluation nudge,” in which people are evaluated jointly rather than separately regarding their future performance. Evaluators are more likely to focus on individual performance in joint than in separate evaluation and on group stereotypes in separate than in joint evaluation, making joint evaluation the money-maximizing evaluation procedure. Our findings are compatible with a behavioral model of information processing and with the System 1/System 2 distinction in behavioral decision research where people have two distinct modes of thinking that are activated under certain conditions.Link

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Power of Experiments: Decision-Making in a Data-Driven World

The Power of Experiments: Decision-Making in a Data-Driven World. Michael Luca, Max Bazerman, 2019, Book, “Have you logged into Facebook recently? Searched for something on Google? Chosen a movie on Netflix? If so, you’ve probably been an unwitting participant in a variety of experiments—also known as randomized controlled trials—designed to test the impact of changes to an experience or product. Once an esoteric tool for academic research, the randomized controlled trial has gone mainstream—and is becoming an important part of the managerial toolkit. In The Power of Experiments: Decision-Making in a Data Driven World, Michael Luca and Max Bazerman explore the value of experiments and the ways in which they can improve organizational decisions. Drawing on real world experiments and case studies, Luca and Bazerman show that going by gut is no longer enough—successful leaders need frameworks for moving between data and decisions. Experiments can save companies money—eBay, for example, discovered how to cut $50 million from its yearly advertising budget without losing customers. Experiments can also bring to light something previously ignored, as when Airbnb was forced to confront rampant discrimination by its hosts. The Power of Experiments introduces readers to the topic of experimentation and the managerial challenges that surround them. Looking at experiments in the tech sector and beyond, this book offers lessons and best practices for making the most of experiments.Link

Tags: , , , , ,