DOCSLIB.ORG

Individual Differences in Cognitive Biases: Some Evidence for a Rationality Factor and Its Convergent/Discriminant and Ecological Validity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Individual differences in cognitive biases: Some evidence for a rationality factor and its convergent/discriminant and ecological validity. Nikola Erceg1, Zvonimir Galić1, Andreja Bubić2 1 Faculty of humanities and social sciences, University of Zagreb 2 Faculty of humanities and social sciences, University of Split This work is a part of the project “Implicit personality, decision making and organizational leadership” funded by the Croatian science foundation (Grant no. 9354). Data can be found here: https://osf.io/yt52k/ This article is a preprint and it has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Comments, feedback, ideas, critiques, suggestions are very welcome. Feel free to address them to Nikola Erceg, Email: [email protected], Twitter handle: @nertzeg. Abstract The goal of this study was twofold. First, we investigated the dimensionality of several prominent cognitive bias tasks across two studies to see whether a single robust rationality factor can explain a performance on these tasks. Second, we validated this factor by correlating it with a number of constructs from its nomological network (fluid intelligence, numeracy, actively open-minded thinking, conspiracy and superstitious thinking, personality traits) and several real-life outcomes (decision- outcome inventory, job and career satisfaction, peer-rated decision-making quality). We found that, although a two-factor structure of biases was the best one in Study 1, in both studies one factor (called Rationality factor) was able to explain a substantial portion of variance in the tasks. Furthermore, across both studies, the two strongest correlations of Rationality factor were with numeracy and actively open-minded thinking measures. We conclude that there seems to exist a robust Rationality factor and that abilities and dispositions assessed with numeracy and actively open-minded thinking measures largely underpin it. We discuss how our findings relate to dual-process theories and offer our view on the place of rationality in a broader model of human intelligence. Keywords: Rationality; Cognitive bias; Numeracy; Actively open-minded thinking; Intelligence; Introduction Recently, Stankov (2017) argued that the research on intelligence has been stifled because of the continuing emphasis on the “g” factor and advocated for broadening the study of cognitive abilities by including additional, understudied constructs and measures. In particular, he believes that research on individual differences in cognitive abilities, among the other things, could be enriched by studying concepts and constructs from the domain of decision-making. There have been some indications that tasks that measure different cognitive biases (CBs) capture something other than intelligence, a construct that is labelled as rationality (e.g. Stanovich & West, 2008; Stanovich, West & Toplak, 2016) or decision-making competence (DMC, e.g., Bruine de Bruin, Parker & Fischoff, 2007; Parker & Fischoff, 2005), and as such could enrich our understanding of individual differences in cognitive processing. However, before rationality can be deemed a proper aspect of cognitive functioning, Stankov believes that it has to meet three criteria: a) measures of CBs must be reliable; b) correlations between different CBs measures should be high enough to allow for defining a single rationality factor; and c) rationality ought to show a moderate relationship with intelligence but not completely overlap with it. In line with this, the present study has three goals that correspond with the described requirements. Our first goal was to investigate whether different CBs can be measured with short, yet reliable measures. Previous studies (e.g. Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Finucane & Gullion, 2010; Teovanović, Knežević & Stankov, 2015) showed that it is possible to measure most of CBs sufficiently reliably, although this perhaps depends on the type of bias and the measurement method (Aczel, Bago, Szollosi, Foldes & Lukacs, 2015). Our second goal was to investigate a factorial structure of a set of CBs tasks. The main question here is whether one factor of rationality would account for substantial variance in CBs tasks or if the latent structure of CBs tasks would be more complex. On the one hand, some previous studies mostly point to a complex factorial structure of CBs tasks with a minimum of two to three factors needed to sufficiently account for the common variance among the tasks (e.g. Aczel et al., 2015; Ceschi, Constantini, Sartoti, Weller & Di Fabio, 2019; Slugoski, Shields & Dawson, 1993; Teovanović et al., 2015; Weaver & Stewart, 2012). On the other hand, some other researchers pointed out that different CB tasks are generally in positive intercorrelations and that, although multifactorial solutions are generally better, a single factor can often explain a substantial amount of variance in CBs tasks suggesting evidence for a rationality or DMC factor (e.g. Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Parker & Fischoff, 2005). Finally, our third goal was to investigate the relationship(s) between rationality factor(s) and different cognitive abilities such as fluid intelligence and numerical ability. Although Stanovich and West (2008) showed that some CB tasks are independent of cognitive abilities, the majority of studies demonstrated that the correlations between CBs and cognitive abilities are low to moderate (e.g. Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Erceg, Galić & Bubić, 2019; Parker & Fischoff, 2005; Teovanović et al., 2015; Toplak, West & Stanovich, 2011). A recent study by Blacksmith, Behrend, Dalal & Hayes (2019) even found a correlation between CBs tasks composite and general mental ability as high as to declare them to be empirically redundant. In addition to these three, we formulated a fourth goal – to validate our rationality measure by correlating it with variables from its nomological network, such as superstitious and conspiracy beliefs, thinking dispositions and personality traits (convergent validity), as well as with potential real life consequences of decisions (ecological validity). Previous studies showed that better performances on CB tasks are related to lower susceptibility towards epistemically suspect beliefs (superstitious/ paranormal/conspiracy beliefs; Čavojova, Šrol & Jurkovič, 2020; Erceg et al., 2019; Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler & Fugelsang, 2015; Šrol, 2020, Toplak et al., 2017) but greater orientation towards actively open-minded thinking (Stanovich & West, 1997, 1998; Sá, West, & Stanovich, 1999; Toplak, West & Stanovich, 2014a). A few studies looking at the relationship between personality traits and CB performance found that the ability to resist framing errors was positively related with emotional stability, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Soane & Chmiel, 2005) and that a composite score on different CB tasks was positively correlated with conscientiousness, openness and honesty/humility (Weller, Ceschi, Hirsch, Sartori, & Costantini, 2018). Finally, performance on CBs tasks seems to be predictive of more positive real-life outcomes (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2007; Toplak et al., 2017). Stanovich, Toplak and West (2008) developed a taxonomy of CBs based on the dual-process theory of reasoning. According to this view, Type 1 processes (reflexive, deliberate) always generate initial response and the task of Type 2 processes (autonomous, automatic) is either to accept it or to intervene and correct it. Most of the CB tasks are deliberately designed in such a way to trigger an incorrect intuitive response that needs to be corrected in order to give a correct response. Thus, according to Stanovich et al. (2008), people can fail at different stages of detecting the incorrectness of intuitive response and coming up with a correct response, and different CBs typically result in failures at different steps of this process. Specifically, cognitive failures can be due to cognitive miserliness (defaulting to Type 1 processing without even noticing the need to engage in Type 2 processing, or engaging in Type 2 processes to insufficient extent such as in the case of availability bias or framing effects), override failures (Type 2 processes are engaged and try to override Type 1 responses, but ultimately fail; e.g. belief bias, denominator neglect), mindware gaps (when relevant knowledge needed to come up with correct response is lacking; e.g. conjunction fallacy, base-rate neglect) or contaminated mindware (when present knowledge and mindware is faulty and a thus a direct cause of irrationality; e.g. confirmation and myside bias). Another approach to developing a CB taxonomy is one by Oreg and Bayazit (2009). They propose that biases result from people trying to satisfy three motivational end states: achievement of consistency and coherence, comprehension of reality and approach to pleasure/avoidance of pain. Thus, there are three different types of biases: verification biases, simplification biases and regulation biases. Verification biases distort people’s perceptions of themselves and the world around them in order to achieve consistency and coherence (e.g. overconfidence bias, self-serving bias, unrealistically positive self- views). Simplification biases occur in the process of comprehending the reality and result in distortion and inaccuracies in the way people process information and analyze problems (e.g. base-rate neglect, belief bias, denominator neglect, conjunction fallacy, four-card selection errors). Finally, regulation biases occur when trying to approach pleasure and avoid
Recommended publications
  • 2020 WGEA Regional Meeting Abstract Compendium

    2020 WGEA Regional Meeting Abstract Compendium

    2020 WGEA Regional Meeting Abstract Compendium Table of Contents Message from WGEA Chair ........................................................................................................... 2 Message from WGEA Conference/ Host Chairs ............................................................................ 3 Special Thanks and Acknowledgments .......................................................................................... 4 WGEA Awards ............................................................................................................................... 5 Innovation Abstracts ....................................................................................................................... 6 Research Abstracts ........................................................................................................................ 85 Small Group, Workshop and Panel Discussion Abstracts .......................................................... 155 List of WGEA Steering Committee members ............................................................................ 273 List of WGEA Planning Committee and Subcommittees members ........................................... 274 2020 WGEA Reviewer List ........................................................................................................ 275 1 Message from WGEA Chair On behalf of the Western Group on Educational Affairs (WGEA) Steering Committee, I welcome you to the WGEA 2020 Annual Spring Meeting, Finding Common Ground. We will highlight the following
  • The Status Quo Bias and Decisions to Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment

    The Status Quo Bias and Decisions to Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment

    HUMANITIES | MEDICINE AND SOCIETY The status quo bias and decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment n Cite as: CMAJ 2018 March 5;190:E265-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.171005 t’s not uncommon for physicians and impasse. One factor that hasn’t been host of psychological phenomena that surrogate decision-makers to disagree studied yet is the role that cognitive cause people to make irrational deci- about life-sustaining treatment for biases might play in surrogate decision- sions, referred to as “cognitive biases.” Iincapacitated patients. Several studies making regarding withdrawal of life- One cognitive bias that is particularly show physicians perceive that nonbenefi- sustaining treatment. Understanding the worth exploring in the context of surrogate cial treatment is provided quite frequently role that these biases might play may decisions regarding life-sustaining treat- in their intensive care units. Palda and col- help improve communication between ment is the status quo bias. This bias, a leagues,1 for example, found that 87% of clinicians and surrogates when these con- decision-maker’s preference for the cur- physicians believed that futile treatment flicts arise. rent state of affairs,3 has been shown to had been provided in their ICU within the influence decision-making in a wide array previous year. (The authors in this study Status quo bias of contexts. For example, it has been cited equated “futile” with “nonbeneficial,” The classic model of human decision- as a mechanism to explain patient inertia defined as a treatment “that offers no rea- making is the rational choice or “rational (why patients have difficulty changing sonable hope of recovery or improvement, actor” model, the view that human beings their behaviour to improve their health), or because the patient is permanently will choose the option that has the best low organ-donation rates, low retirement- unable to experience any benefit.”) chance of satisfying their preferences.
  • A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization

    A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization

    A Task-based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization Evanthia Dimara, Steven Franconeri, Catherine Plaisant, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Pierre Dragicevic Three kinds of limitations The Computer The Display 2 Three kinds of limitations The Computer The Display The Human 3 Three kinds of limitations: humans • Human vision ️ has limitations • Human reasoning 易 has limitations The Human 4 ️Perceptual bias Magnitude estimation 5 ️Perceptual bias Magnitude estimation Color perception 6 易 Cognitive bias Behaviors when humans consistently behave irrationally Pohl’s criteria distilled: • Are predictable and consistent • People are unaware they’re doing them • Are not misunderstandings 7 Ambiguity effect, Anchoring or focalism, Anthropocentric thinking, Anthropomorphism or personification, Attentional bias, Attribute substitution, Automation bias, Availability heuristic, Availability cascade, Backfire effect, Bandwagon effect, Base rate fallacy or Base rate neglect, Belief bias, Ben Franklin effect, Berkson's paradox, Bias blind spot, Choice-supportive bias, Clustering illusion, Compassion fade, Confirmation bias, Congruence bias, Conjunction fallacy, Conservatism (belief revision), Continued influence effect, Contrast effect, Courtesy bias, Curse of knowledge, Declinism, Decoy effect, Default effect, Denomination effect, Disposition effect, Distinction bias, Dread aversion, Dunning–Kruger effect, Duration neglect, Empathy gap, End-of-history illusion, Endowment effect, Exaggerated expectation, Experimenter's or expectation bias,
  • Cognitive Bias Mitigation: How to Make Decision-Making More Rational?

    Cognitive Bias Mitigation: How to Make Decision-Making More Rational?

    Cognitive Bias Mitigation: How to make decision-making more rational? Abstract Cognitive biases distort judgement and adversely impact decision-making, which results in economic inefficiencies. Initial attempts to mitigate these biases met with little success. However, recent studies which used computer games and educational videos to train people to avoid biases (Clegg et al., 2014; Morewedge et al., 2015) showed that this form of training reduced selected cognitive biases by 30 %. In this work I report results of an experiment which investigated the debiasing effects of training on confirmation bias. The debiasing training took the form of a short video which contained information about confirmation bias, its impact on judgement, and mitigation strategies. The results show that participants exhibited confirmation bias both in the selection and processing of information, and that debiasing training effectively decreased the level of confirmation bias by 33 % at the 5% significance level. Key words: Behavioural economics, cognitive bias, confirmation bias, cognitive bias mitigation, confirmation bias mitigation, debiasing JEL classification: D03, D81, Y80 1 Introduction Empirical research has documented a panoply of cognitive biases which impair human judgement and make people depart systematically from models of rational behaviour (Gilovich et al., 2002; Kahneman, 2011; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Pohl, 2004). Besides distorted decision-making and judgement in the areas of medicine, law, and military (Nickerson, 1998), cognitive biases can also lead to economic inefficiencies. Slovic et al. (1977) point out how they distort insurance purchases, Hyman Minsky (1982) partly blames psychological factors for economic cycles. Shefrin (2010) argues that confirmation bias and some other cognitive biases were among the significant factors leading to the global financial crisis which broke out in 2008.
  • Critical Thinking Education and Debiasing

    Critical Thinking Education and Debiasing

    Critical Thinking Education and Debiasing TIM KENYON University of Waterloo Department of Philosophy 200 University Avenue West Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1 Canada [email protected] GUILLAUME BEAULAC Yale University Department of Philosophy 344 College St. New Haven, CT. 06511-6629 USA [email protected] Abstract: There are empirical Résumé: Des données empiriques grounds to doubt the effectiveness of nous permettent de douter de a common and intuitive approach to l'efficacité d'une approche commune teaching debiasing strategies in et intuitive pour enseigner des critical thinking courses. We stratégies de correction de biais summarize some of the grounds cognitifs dans les cours de pensée before suggesting a broader critique. Nous résumons certains de taxonomy of debiasing strategies. ces résultats empiriques avant de This four-level taxonomy enables a suggérer une taxonomie plus useful diagnosis of biasing factors étendue de ces stratégies de and situations, and illuminates more correction de biais. Cette taxonomie strategies for more effective bias à quatre niveaux permet un mitigation located in the shaping of diagnostic utile de facteurs causant situational factors and reasoning les biais et elle met en évidence infrastructure—sometimes called davantage de stratégies permettant la “nudges” in the literature. The correction plus efficace de biais, question, we contend, then becomes stratégies situées dans des mesures how best to teach the construction modifiant les infrastructures et les and use of such infrastructures. environnements cognitifs ("nudge" dans la littérature). Nous soutenons que la question porte dès lors sur les meilleures façons d'enseigner la construction et l'utilisation de ces infrastructures. Keywords: Critical thinking, biases, debiasing, education, nudges © Tim Kenyon and Guillaume Beaulac, Informal Logic, Vol.
  • Can Animal Data Translate to Innovations Necessary for a New

    Can Animal Data Translate to Innovations Necessary for a New

    Green BMC Medical Ethics (2015) 16:53 DOI 10.1186/s12910-015-0043-7 DEBATE Open Access Can animal data translate to innovations necessary for a new era of patient-centred and individualised healthcare? Bias in preclinical animal research Susan Bridgwood Green Abstract Background: The public and healthcare workers have a high expectation of animal research which they perceive as necessary to predict the safety and efficacy of drugs before testing in clinical trials. However, the expectation is not always realised and there is evidence that the research often fails to stand up to scientific scrutiny and its 'predictive value' is either weak or absent. Discussion: Problems with the use of animals as models of humans arise from a variety of biases and systemic failures including: 1) bias and poor practice in research methodology and data analysis; 2) lack of transparency in scientific assessment and regulation of the research; 3) long-term denial of weaknesses in cross-species translation; 4) profit-driven motives overriding patient interests; 5) lack of accountability of expenditure on animal research; 6) reductionist-materialism in science which tends to dictate scientific inquiry and control the direction of funding in biomedical research. Summary: Bias in animal research needs to be addressed before medical research and healthcare decision-making can be more evidence-based. Research funding may be misdirected on studying 'disease mechanisms' in animals that cannot be replicated outside tightly controlled laboratory conditions, and without sufficient critical evaluation animal research may divert attention away from avenues of research that hold promise for human health. The potential for harm to patients and trial volunteers from reliance on biased animal data1 requires measures to improve its conduct, regulation and analysis.
  • Bbm:978-1-59745-385-1/1.Pdf

    Bbm:978-1-59745-385-1/1.Pdf

    INDEX A information bias .........................................................29 loss to follow-up bias ....................................... 175, 181 Accuracy minimizing methods of ................................... 181–182 clinical research data ................................................309 nonresponse bias ..............................................175, 181 diagnostic tests .................................................132–133 overmatching bias ....................................................176 Additive models, interaction in. See Interaction recall/memory bias ...........................................176–177 Address transparency .....................................................256 sampling bias ......................................................... 6, 29 ADL and Barthel index .................................................156 types of Alignment of research questions .................................... 300 confounding bias ................................................180 Allele-sharing method ...........................................191–194 information bias .........................................176–179 Allocation concealment ............................................... 6, 98 intervention (exposure) bias ................173, 179–180 Allocative efficiency ........................................237–239, 241 selection bias ...................................24, 25, 173–176 Alpha spending.............................................................. 117 Biomarkers Analyses confounding ....................................................
  • Higher Education Reform: Getting the Incentives Right

    Higher Education Reform: Getting the Incentives Right

    Higher Education Reform: Getting the Incentives Right CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis CHEPS Van Stolkweg 14 University of Twente P.O. Box 80510 P.O. Box 217 2508 GM The Hague, The Netherlands 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands ISBN 90 5833 065 6 2 Contents Contents Preface 9 Introduction 11 1 The Dutch higher education system 15 1.1 Binary system 15 1.2 Formal tasks 16 1.3Types of institutions 16 1.4 Funding structure 17 1.5 Public expenditures on higher education 19 1.6 Tuition fee policies 21 1.7 Student support system 23 1.8 Admission policies 24 1.9 Quality control 25 1.10 Enrollment 26 Annex:Public funding of higher education in the Netherlands, performance-based models 29 2 Economics of higher education 35 2.1 Why do people attend higher education? 35 2.1.1 The human capital approach 35 2.1.2 The signalling approach 36 2.1.3How high are the financial and non-financial returns to higher education? 36 2.2 Why public support of higher education? 38 2.2.1 Human capital spillovers 38 2.2.2 Capital market constraints 39 2.2.3Risk 40 2.2.4 Imperfect information and transparency 41 2.2.5 Income redistribution 42 2.2.6 Tax distortions 42 2.3How to fund higher education? 42 2.3.1 Student support 43 2.3.2 Funding of higher education institutions 43 2.4 Public versus private provision of higher education 44 2.5 Should the higher education sector be deregulated? 45 2.6 Why combine education and research in universities? 46 5 Higher Education Reform: Getting the Incentives Right 2.7 Why and when should research be publicly funded?
  • Curriculum Reform at Tertiary Level As Key to Graduate Employability and Entrepreneurship in Lesotho

    Curriculum Reform at Tertiary Level As Key to Graduate Employability and Entrepreneurship in Lesotho

    Journal of US-China Public Administration, June 2017, Vol. 14, No. 6, 339-347 doi: 10.17265/1548-6591/2017.06.005 D DAVID PUBLISHING Curriculum Reform at Tertiary Level as Key to Graduate Employability and Entrepreneurship in Lesotho T. Mukurunge, N. Tlali Limkokwing University of Creative Technology, Maseru, Lesotho The curriculum in Lesotho at tertiary level does not adequately prepare graduates for the employment world, nor for self-made business people. The main emphasis is theoretical and academic excellence rather than for production in industry or for empowerment with entrepreneurial skills. This is a problem because Lesotho does not have an industrial power base for the economy to employ a big number of tertiary graduates. The industries that offer employment to citizens are mainly the Chinese-owned textile industries and taxi/transport industry, or the South African mines and farms which require cheap labour and not tertiary graduates. Lesotho therefore requires an education that produces graduates who can create employment for other primarily or highly skilled technocrats who will be able to be employed above the level of mere labourers in the sophisticated economy of South Africa. This study therefore sought to establish what the Ministry of Education and tertiary institutions are doing about this scenario, whether they have plans for curriculum review that will be aligned towards producing entrepreneurs and technocrats for the economic development of Lesotho. This research will benefit the authorities responsible for development through small businesses, the employment sector, as well as tertiary institutions in curriculum review. Keywords: curriculum, curriculum review, entrepreneurship, tertiary institutions, technocrats Curriculum is a planned and guided learning experiences carried out in the institution for the purpose of living a useful and productive life in our contemporary society today (Ogwu, Omeje, & Nwokenna, 2014, p.
  • “Dysrationalia” Among University Students: the Role of Cognitive

    “Dysrationalia” Among University Students: the Role of Cognitive

    “Dysrationalia” among university students: The role of cognitive abilities, different aspects of rational thought and self-control in explaining epistemically suspect beliefs Erceg, Nikola; Galić, Zvonimir; Bubić, Andreja Source / Izvornik: Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2019, 15, 159 - 175 Journal article, Published version Rad u časopisu, Objavljena verzija rada (izdavačev PDF) https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i1.1696 Permanent link / Trajna poveznica: https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:131:942674 Rights / Prava: Attribution 4.0 International Download date / Datum preuzimanja: 2021-09-29 Repository / Repozitorij: ODRAZ - open repository of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Europe's Journal of Psychology ejop.psychopen.eu | 1841-0413 Research Reports “Dysrationalia” Among University Students: The Role of Cognitive Abilities, Different Aspects of Rational Thought and Self-Control in Explaining Epistemically Suspect Beliefs Nikola Erceg* a, Zvonimir Galić a, Andreja Bubić b [a] Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia. [b] Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia. Abstract The aim of the study was to investigate the role that cognitive abilities, rational thinking abilities, cognitive styles and self-control play in explaining the endorsement of epistemically suspect beliefs among university students. A total of 159 students participated in the study. We found that different aspects of rational thought (i.e. rational thinking abilities and cognitive styles) and self-control, but not intelligence, significantly predicted the endorsement of epistemically suspect beliefs. Based on these findings, it may be suggested that intelligence and rational thinking, although related, represent two fundamentally different constructs.
  • Estudios Públicos 141, Revista De Políticas Públicas

    Estudios Públicos 141, Revista De Políticas Públicas

    DEBATE LA DIVERSIDAD POLÍTICA VA A MEJORAR LA CIENCIA DE LA PSICOLOGÍA SOCIAL* José L. Duarte Jarret T. Crawford Universidad Estatal de Arizona The College of New Jersey [email protected] [email protected] Charlotta Stern Jonathan Haidt U niversidad de Estocolmo Universidad de Nueva York [email protected] [email protected] Lee Jussim Philip E. Tetlock U niversidad de Rutgers U niversidad de Pensilvania [email protected] [email protected]. wwww.cepchile.cl RESUMEN: Los psicólogos han demostrado el valor de la diversidad —en especial, la diversidad de puntos de vista— para potenciar la creatividad, la capacidad de descubrimiento y la solución de proble- mas. Pero un tipo clave de diversidad sigue ausente en la psicología académica, en general, y en la psicología social, en particular: la diversidad política. Este artículo revisa la evidencia disponible y halla elementos que respaldan cuatro afirmaciones: 1) La psicología * Publicado originalmente en Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38 (2015). Traduci- mos aquí, con la debida autorización, el artículo original y una selección de los nu- merosos comentarios críticos que acompañaron su publicación en dicha revista. La traducción fue realizada por Cristóbal Santa Cruz para Estudios Públicos. Todos los autores contribuyeron de manera sustancial y son nombrados en orden inverso según su antigüedad académica. Ellos agradecen a Bill von Hippel, Michael Huemer, Jon Krosnick, Greg Mitchell, Richard Nisbett y Bobbie Spellman por sus comentarios a versiones preliminares de este artículo, si bien ello no implica nece- sariamente que suscriban las opiniones expresadas en este artículo. Estudios Públicos, 141 (verano 2016), 173-248 ISSN: 0716-1115 (impresa), 0718-3089 (en línea) 174 ESTUDIOS PÚBLICOS, 141 (verano 2016), 173-248 académica solía tener una considerable diversidad política, pero la ha perdido casi por completo en los últimos 50 años.
  • Bias in Organisaties En Verandering

    Bias in Organisaties En Verandering

    Bias in organisaties en verandering Introductie Volgens de psycholoog en Nobelprijswinnaar Economie Daniel Kahneman zijn er patronen te herkennen in denkfouten die mensen maken. Deze zijn vaak verbonden met intuïtieve vooringenomenheden, neigingen of biases. In dit artikel worden diagnostische termen aangereikt voor deze biases met betrekking tot de belangrijke processen van besluitvorming en samenwerking in organisaties en bij verandering. Titel : Bias in organisaties en verandering Auteurs : Steven ten Have en Cornell Vernooij Verschenen in : Holland Management Review (HMR 194, november-december 2020) Publicatiedatum : 14-12-2020 Tags : verandering Geselecteerd door : Cornell Vernooij ([email protected]) op 16-12-2020 Dit artikel/hoofdstuk is afkomstig uit Holland Management Review. Het auteursrecht is voorbehouden. De publicatie is bestemd voor eigen gebruik. Het is niet de bedoeling dit op commerciële basis verder te verspreiden. Neem in dat geval contact op met de uitgever, Mediawerf Uitgevers, www.mediawerf.nl. E-mailadres: [email protected]. 44 HOLLAND MANAGEMENT REVIEW SAIB JIB GARDEG NE SEITASINAGRO NI GNIREDNAREV NI SEITASINAGRO Steven ten Have, Cornell Vernooj, Maarten Hendriks, Wouter ten Have en Judith Stujt VERANDERING Het menseljk denken is niet louter rationeel; het wordt gekenmerkt door tal van biases of vertekeningen. Die beïnvloeden ook het denken over organisaties en veranderingsprocessen. Biases zjn echter niet aleen maar negatief. Het is zinvol om te begrjpen welke soorten biases zich bj medewerkers kunnen voordoen, en wat die vertekeningen kunnen betekenen voor verandering in een organisatie. Ondernemingen en instelingen worden verondersteld discussie. Kahneman legt de nadruk op stelselmatige vanuit hun purpose – hun economische of maatschap- fouten en veronderstelt herkenbare patronen in denk- peljke opdracht – doelgericht, doelmatig en doelbe- fouten die mensen maken.