Decision Making for Professionals - Children - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theDecision Making for Professionals, Children and Parents. Answer: Introduction Decision making is a vital process in daily lives of people including professionals, children, and parents. The outcome consequence of this process is squarely dependable on the mode employed. Information availability and problem framing are the major factors impacting on the process. Decision making is reliant upon several concepts which include anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability heuristic, among many others (Sharot, 2011). Before making decisions, managers ought to carefully analyze the situation at hand for the decision-making outcome. This is important to handle possible flaws in the results of the decisions which are often wired in the decision making process. It is critical that the decision maker establishes an environment of friendliness and trust through connecting emotionally and intellectually to the parties involved (Parkin, 2013). Therefore, such measures will enhance the achievement of the desired outcome. Confirmation Bias Leaders seek for information that supports their instincts and positions and despise information that is not consistent with it. Confirmation bias is a concept of decision-making that makes people filter for only information they want and makes decision basing on it. Further, the decision maker will support the result or product but negate any information contradicting it. The concept can also be viewed on the lenses of values and facts in that any data that contradicts the values are ignored, but information that is consistent with it is supported and upheld. Briefly, the concept will solicit for information that supports the existing position of the individual emerging as discriminatory (Frost, Casey, Griffin, Raymundo, Farrell Carrigan, 2015). A scenario of the confirmation bias is the reasoning of the racist or religious group. Racist and people in religion tend to confirm the position taken by their group regardless of the common argument. Example, the Christians will conclude that Muslim religion propagates terrorism through their radical teaching and they will support their position with information available with them (Baack, Dow, Parente Bacon, 2015). The element of confirmation bias in this scenario emerges because the argument is anchored on one's convictions and has a pre-determined conclusion. The conviction level is the measure or evaluation degree for this kind of bias. Further, the individual arguing is interested and seeks for information only consistent with their position rather than being open-minded and analyze and synthesize the whole piece of information (Keltner Lerner, 2010). Some of the strategies to address the confirmation bias include information seeking. In the scenario, religious parties should seek information on the other before making any judgment. Insufficient information brings about confirmation bias in decision-making. Also, a strategy to avoid bias, people avoid being driven by motives and rather consider making decisions basing on the existing facts. In the scenario, the religious groups should seek information on the other, and avoid making reason-driven and resolve to be moved by the prevailing truth. Anchoring Bias Anchoring bias is the practice of arriving at a conclusion based on prior gained information in the process of decision-making. The decision maker consumes the first impression and intelligence giving it misappropriate weight and makes it the pillar of their verdict and direction in any situation (Brunton, Botvinick Brody, 2013). Anchoring can misguide the decision maker by relying on the inadequate and incomplete information. A scenario of anchoring bias is in the business world, where the players tend to overly rely on past trends to predict and plan for the future business activities. Despite the usefulness and importance, this might present to the firm people; they tend to ignore other factors including environmental, political and social factors that might be of consequence to their planning (Bollen, Mao Pepe, 2011). In this scenario, the level of biases can be measured by the extent by which a potential buyer fall into the seller's trap depending on the anchoring concept that they have received. The buyer will base their negotiations on the starting price as indicated on the price sticker a move that will affect their abilities to do an in-depth consultation to achieve the real value for their money. The retailer starting price will dictate their counter-offers which many times tend to have close margins. The buyer is consequently misguided by focusing on one element and thus ending up making errors and mistakes for not considering other factors or variables. Some of the strategies to overcome the bias in this scenario include the willingness of the potential buyer to seek more information before making the purchase decision. First impressions and the information from one source may not be accurate, and thus, there is need to gather more information from a variety of sources, including the personal evaluation of the product or service, and comparing it with the value that they will derive before making the purchase decision. Therefore, this will address and improve the decision outcomes Lelieveld, Dijk Kleef, 2013). Heuristic Bias Decision making is a cognitive process that is affected by several factors known as heuristics. This concept is anchored on memories and lasting impressions on the decision maker's mind. Further, it can skew future decision-making efforts (Hertwig, Hoffrage ABC Research Group, 2013). The availability heuristic is the judgment adopted by an individual basing on a previous experience ingrained in their minds. The decision maker relies on the information that is readily available in their mind ignoring everything else. Examples include post-decision evaluation and problem framing. An individual will overestimate or underestimate the information they receive only to anchor their positions on other information available to them (Sharot, Christoph Dolan, 2011). In an example scenario to depict heuristic bias, people might argue that smoking does not gravely impact on one's health and justify their position by stating that a person they once knew who smoke lived to 100 years. This person's judgment is informed by the memory of information they have concerning a given topic or issue on the discussion. The heuristic bias can be measured or evaluated by the level of knowledge and information that people have over the topic under consideration. Heuristic bias can be effectively handled through strategies where the decision maker carefully examines all of their assumptions to ensure their memory does not unduly influence them. The remembrance level has a significant impact on the degree of heuristic bias. Thus, the people involved need to know the assumptions of their information or memory shortcomings, and this will reduce the biases and the improved process in the scenario (Todd Gigerenzer, 2012). Conclusion In conclusion, unbiased decisions are critical in our daily life. Various decision-making biases affect the reliability of decisions. This biases include heuristic bias, anchoring bias, and the confirmation bias. It is important for people involved in decision-making to understand these forms of bias and take appropriate strategies to manage the bias to increase the reliability and accuracy of the decision-making outcome. References Baack, D., Dow, D., Parente, R. Bacon, D. (2015). The Confirmation bias in the individual-level perceptions of the psychic distance: An experimental investigation. Journal of the International Business Studies, 46(8), 938-959. Bollen, J., Mao, H. Pepe, A. (2011). Modeling public mood and the emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2011). Barcelona, Spain Brunton, B., Botvinick, M. Brody, C. (April 2013)."Rats and humans can optimally accumulate evidence for decision-making"Science.340(6128): 9598. Frost, P., Casey, B., Griffin, K., Raymundo, L., Farrell, C. Carrigan, R. (2015). Influence of the Confirmation Bias on Memory and Source Monitoring. Journal of General Psychology, 142(4), 238-252. Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U. ABC Research Group. (2013). The Simple Heuristics in the social world. New York: Oxford University Press. Keltner, D. Lerner, S. (2010). Emotion. In The handbook of the social psychology, ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, pp. 317-52. New York, NY: Wiley Lelieveld, G., Dijk, C Kleef, G. (2013). Does communicating disappointment in negotiations help or hurt? Solving an apparent inconsistency in the social-functional approach to the emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105: 605-20 Parkin, A. (2013). Essential Cognitive Psychology. Psychology Press. Sharot, T. (2011).The optimism bias: a tour of an irrationally positive brain(1st ed.). New York:Pantheon Books.ISBN9780307378484. Sharot, T., Christoph, W. Dolan, R. (October 2011)."How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality." Nature Neuroscience.14(11): 14751479.PMC3204264?.PMID21983684. Todd, P. Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. New York: Oxford University Press.