Psychology of Decision making IV.

Prezentace na téma: "Psychology of Decision making IV."— Transkript prezentace:

1 Psychology of Decision making IV.

2 Agenda Medicin Justice Drafting Recruiting Art Exercise

3 Breiman et al., 1993 A man is rushed to a hospital in the throes of a heart attack. The doctor needs to decide whether the victim should be treated as a low risk or a high risk patient. He is at high risk if his life is truly threatened, and should receive the most expensive and detailed care. Although this decision can save or cost a life, the doctor must decide using only the available cues, each of which is, at best, merely an uncertain predictor of the patient's risk level. Common sense dictates that the best way to make the decision is to look at the results of each of the many measurements that are taken when a heart attack patient is admitted, rank them according to their importance, and combine them somehow into a final conclusion, preferably using some fancy statistical software package. Consider in contrast the simple decision tree in Figure 1, which was designed by Breiman and colleagues (Breiman et al., 1993) to classify heart attack patients according to risk using only a maximum of three variables. If a patient has had a systolic blood pressure of less than 91, he is immediately classified as high risk--no further information is needed. If not, then the decision is left to the second cue, age. If the patient is under 62.5 years old, he is classified as low risk; if he is older, then one more cue (sinus tachycardia) is needed to classify him as high or low risk. Thus, the tree requires the doctor to answer a maximum of three yes-no questions to reach a decision rather than to measure and consider all of the several usual predictors, letting her proceed to life-saving treatment all the sooner. Yet it is actually more accurate in classifying heart attack patients according to risk status than are some rather complex classification methods (Breiman et al., 1993). SOURCE: Gerd Gigerenzer: The Adaptive Toolbox: Toward a Darwinian Rationality

4 Justice Procedures to avoid hasty decisions
Both parties present arguments Supreme court each juror must present opinion especially if negative Closing process to public Etc.

5 Drafting players Staw a Hoang (1995)
This study represents one of the first quantitative field tests of the sunk- cost effect. We tested whether the amount teams spent for players in the National Basketball Association (NBA) influenced how much playing time players got and how long they stayed with NBA franchises. Sunk costs were operationalized by the order in which players were selected in the college draft. Draft order was then used to predict playing time, being traded, and survival in the NBA. Although one might logically expect that teams play and keep their most productive players, we found significant sunk-cost effects on each of these important personnel decisions. Results showed that teams granted more playing time to their most highly drafted players and retained them longer, even after controlling for players' on-court performance, injuries, trade status, and position played. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for both sunk-cost research and the broader literature on managerial decision making. Sunk costs in the NBA: why draft order affects playing time and survival in professional basketball by Barry M. Staw , Ha Hoang Common sense tells us that people try to avoid losing courses of action. They move away from lines of behavior that have not been rewarded and hesitate to follow strategies that are not likely to yield future benefits. Yet some behavioral research has challenged this logic. Coming under the rubric of escalation of commitment, a number of studies have shown that people can become stuck in losing courses of action, sometimes to the point of "throwing good money after bad." Evidence of this escalation effect was initially provided by three independent lines of research. Staw (1976) used a simulated business case to show that people responsible for a losing course of action will invest further than those not responsible for prior losses. Tegar (1980) took advantage of an unusual competitive bidding game (Shubik, 1971) to demonstrate that people can become so committed to a position that they will pay more for a monetary reward than it is worth. Finally, in several related studies, Brockner and Rubin (1985) showed that people are likely to expend substantial amounts of time and money in efforts to reach a receding or elusive goal. These initial investigations have been followed by a wide range of studies on conditions likely to foster persistence in a course of action, along with a set of theories accounting for these effects (see Staw and Ross, 1987, 1989; Brockner, 1992, for reviews). Though the escalation literature has grown dramatically over the past two decades, it has continued to suffer from some serious problems. One issue is that escalation researchers have borrowed heavily from other research areas, such as cognitive and social psychology, without strict guidelines for selecting those variables most parallel to the conditions or events present in escalation situations. A second problem is that much of the escalation literature, despite its intent to explain nonrational sources of commitment, has not directly challenged the assumptions of economic decision making. By and large, the escalation literature has demonstrated that psychological and social factors can influence resource allocation decisions, not that the rational assumptions of decision making are in error. A third weakness is that almost all the escalation literature is laboratory based. Aside from a few recent qualitative case studies (e.g., Ross and Staw, 1986, 1993), escalation predictions have not been confirmed or falsified in real organizational settings, using data that are generated in their natural context. Therefore, despite the size of the escalation literature, it is still uncertain if escalation effects can be generalized from the laboratory to the field. This paper presents one of the first quantitative field studies in the escalation literature. The study does not resolve all the problems of the escalation area, but it was designed with these deficiencies in mind. Because escalation situations involve the expenditure of resources over time, it is important to know whether the amount one initially spends on a course of action can affect subsequent commitment. Therefore, the study of sunk costs (past and irreversible expenditures) is central to the escalation question. Research on sunk costs is also a form of inquiry that confronts directly the assumptions of rational economic decision making. Economists universally caution against the use of sunk (rather than incremental) costs in decisions to invest further time, money, or energy in a course of action (Samuelson and Nordhaus, 1985; Frank, 1991). Therefore, any demonstration that sunk costs influence subsequent investment decisions calls into question the description of people as economically rational decision makers. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by constructing a test of sunk costs using real organizational data, a large void in the escalation literature can be filled. If sunk-cost effects can be demonstrated in the field, then we may have greater confidence that escalation hypotheses can be generalized to situations devoid of the props, scenarios, and student samples generally used by laboratory researchers. Research on Sunk Costs Probably the most important set of sunk-cost studies is a series of ten experiments conducted by Arkes and Blumer (1985). Their most well-known study used a "radar-blank plane" scenario. Students were asked to imagine they were the president of an aircraft company deciding whether to invest $1 million in research on an airplane not detectable by conventional radar. These students were also told that the radar-blank plane was not an economically promising project because another firm already had a superior product. As one might expect, only ...

6 Recruiting interview Proč bych Vás měl přijmout?
Co podle Vás budete dělat za pět let? Co považujete za své silné stránky? Jak byste se charakterizoval/a? Jaký předmět jste měli nějvíce a nejméně rádi na vysoké škole? Co víte o naší společnosti? Proč jste se rozhodl/a hledat práci v naší společnosti? Z jákého důvodu jste skončil/a ve svém předchozím zaměstnání? Kolik byste chtěl/a vydělávat za pět let? Co chcete v životě opravdu dělat? The Eight Types of Interview Questions Interviewing is not a science. Nor is it an art form. It is simply an imperfect form of human communication designed to increase the predictive validity of potential employer-employee relationships. And it is very imperfect. There are basically eight types of questions you may face during the course of an interview: Credential verification questions This type of question includes What was your GPA? and How long were you at Its purpose is to place objective measurements on features of your background. Experience verification questions This type of question includes What did you learn in that class? and What were your responsibilities in that position? Its purpose is to subjectively evaluate features of your background. Opinion questions This type of question includes What would you do in this situation? and What are your strengths and weaknesses? Their purpose is to subjectively analyze how you would respond in a series of scenarios. The reality is that Tape #143 in your brain typically kicks in (I know the answer to that one!) and plays back the pre-programmed answer. Dumb questions This type of question includes What kind of animal would you like to be? and What color best describes you? Their purpose is to get past your pre-programmed answers to find out if you are capable of an original thought. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer, since it is used primarily to test your ability to think on your feet. Math questions This type of question includes "What is 1000 divided by 73?" to "How many ping pong balls could fit in a Volkswagen?" Its purpose is to evaluate not only your mental math calculation skills, but also your creative ability in formulating the mathematical formula for providing an answer (or estimate, as can often be the case). Case questions This type of question includes problem-solving questions ranging from: "How many gas stations are there in Europe?" to "What is your estimate of the global online retail market for books?" Its purpose is to evaluate your problem-solving abilities and how you would analyze and work through potential case situations. Behavioral questions This type of question includes Can you give me a specific example of how you did that? and What were the steps you followed to accomplish that task? Its purpose is to anticipate future behaviors based upon past behaviors. Competency questions This type of question includes "Can you give me a specific example of your leadership skills?" or "Explain a way in which you sought a creative solution to a problem." Its purpose is to align your past behaviors with specific competencies which are required for the position. Interviewing is a game in which I deal the cards, but you hold the aces. Its up to you to play them. It is interesting to note that the first four types of interview questions listed have a predictive validity for on the job success of just 10 percent. And 10 percent predictive validity is the same level that is generated from a simple resume review. Math questions increase the predictive validity to 15 percent (since it tests intelligence, commonly a key competency for most positions) and case questions raise the predictive validity to 25 percent (and slightly higher for consulting positions). Behavioral and competency interviewing, on the other hand, yield a predictive validity of 55 percent. Still far from perfect, yet much more reliable for most interviewers. Interestingly, the first four question types are still the favored approach by most untrained interviewers, simply due to lack of experience. Behavioral and competency interviewing is gaining greater acceptance by trained interviewers because past performance is the most reliable indicator of future results, especially when it is tied to the specific competencies for the position. Companies such as Accenture have modified this approach with specific critical behavioral interviewing to target those behaviors which provide the highest correlation with the required competencies for highly predictive positive results. Huffcuff in Brafman a Brafman: Houpačka

7 The Getty kouros The Getty kouros[1] is an over-life-sized[2] statue in the form of a late archaic Greek kouros. The dolomitic marble sculpture was bought by the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California, in 1985 for $7 million[3][4] and first exhibited there in October 1986. Despite initial favourable scientific analysis of the patina and aging of the marble, the question of its authenticity has persisted from the beginning. Subsequent demonstration of an artificial means of creating the de-dolomitization observed on the stone has prompted a number of art historians to revise their opinions of the work. If genuine, it is one of only twelve complete kouroi still extant. If fake, it exhibits a high degree of technical and artistic sophistication by an as yet unidentified forger. Its status remains undetermined: today the museum's label reads "Greek, about 530 B.C., or modern forgery".[5]

8 Krokodýlí řeka V jednom království, v jednom městě žili milenci – krásná Abigail a mužný Gregory. V tom městě tekla řeka plná krokodýlů, která ho rozdělovala na dvě poloviny. Na pravém břehu žila Abigail, Gregory žil na levém. Jednoho jara nastaly prudké deště, reka se rozvodnila a strhla most, který spojoval oba břehy. Velká voda trvala dlouho a Abigail se čím dál tím více stýskalo po svém miláčkovi. Byla smutná a přemýšlela, jak by se ke Gregorymu dostala. Žádná loď se neodvažovala na divokou vodu, jenom starý zkušený námožník Sindibad se svou bárkou to dokázal. A tak se Abigail vypravila za ním, aby jí pomohl. Sindibad souhlasil, ale jen pod podmínkou, že s ním stráví jednu noc, Abigail tento návrh velmi rozhořčil, polekala se a utekla. Běžela pryč a uvyžovala, co má dělat. Napadlo ji, že půjde k jejich společnému příteli Ivanovi a celou prekérní záležitost s ním prohovoří a poradí se s ním. Ivan Abigail pozorně vyslechl, ale odmítl se k tomu jakkoli vyjadřovat a nechtěl s tím mít nic společného. A tak se krásná Abigail musela rozhodnout sama, samým steskem už byla celá utrápená. Po dlouhých úvahách, s těžkým srdcem, splnila Sindibadovu podmínku, a ten ji, jak bylo dohodnuto, převezl přes Krokodýlí řeku za Gregorem. Šťastné bylo shledání milenců a po chvílích štěstí si Abigail postěžovala, jaké příkoří musela vytrpět, aby se mohli vidět. Gregory ovšem neměl pro její čin omluvu, velmi se rozčílil a Abigail od sebe zapudil. Nešťastná Abigail utíkala pryč. Cestou potkala Slaga, který když viděl, že pláče, hned se zeptal, co se jí přihodilo. Abigail mu všechno vylíčila. Slag se zarazil, připadalo mu to jako velká nespravedlnost a rozhodl se, že ji pomstí. Vyhledal Gregoryho a surově ho zmlátil. Seřaďte postavy (Abigail, Sindibad, Ivan, Gregory a Slag) podle morálky od nejhoršího po nejméně špatného (pište do diskuse). Kdo se podle vás provinil nejvíce a kdo nejméně nebo vůbec? Jaké pro ně navrhujete tresty?

9 6 myslících klobouků podle De Bona
Bílý klobouk zastupuje fakta a informace o situaci a problém. Je objektivní znalost, více popis než vysvětlování. Červený klobouk zastupuje emocionální prožívání problému nebo situace. Je to subjektivní situace, pocity a intuice. Zelený klobouk vytváří nové nápady, návrhy nebo řešení. Je to symbol otevřeného, kreativního myšlení. Žlutý klobouk shromažďuje pozitivní aspekty jednoho řešení, výhody a budoucí zisky. Představuje také pozitivní motivaci provést zvolené řešení. Černý klobouk shromažďuje všechny negativní aspekty konkrétního řešení nebo rozhodnutí. Popisuje hrozby, nepříjemnosti a špatné důsledky. Modrý klobouk představuje kontrolu celého procesu. Navrhuje další kroky jak během setkání, tak po jeho skončení. To umožňuje účastníkům řídit celý proces a soustředit se na samotnou metodu. andom Entry Idea Generating Tool: Choose an object at random, or a noun from a dictionary, and associate that with the area you are thinking about. For example imagine you are thinking about how to improve a web site. Choosing an object at random from an office you might see a fax machine. A fax machine transmits images over the phone to paper. Fax machines are becoming rare. People send faxes directly to phone numbers. Perhaps this could be a new way to embed the web site's content in s and other sites. Provocation Idea Generating Tool: choose to use any of the provocation techniques—wishful thinking, exaggeration, reversal, escape, or arising. Create a list of provocations and then use the most outlandish ones to move your thinking forward to new ideas. Challenge Idea Generating Tool: A tool which is designed to ask the question "Why?" in a non-threatening way: why something exists, why it is done the way it is. The result is a very clear understanding of "Why?" which naturally leads to fresh new ideas. The goal is to be able to challenge anything at all, not just items which are problems. For example you could challenge the handles on coffee cups. The reason for the handle seems to be that the cup is often too hot to hold directly. Perhaps coffee cups could be made with insulated finger grips, or there could be separate coffee cup holders similar to beer holders. Concept Fan Idea Generating Tool: Ideas carry out concepts. This tool systematically expands the range and number of concepts in order to end up with a very broad range of ideas to consider. Disproving: Based on the idea that the majority is always wrong (Henrik Ibsen, Galbraith[who?]), take anything that is obvious and generally accepted as "goes without saying", question it, take an opposite view, and try to convincingly disprove it. The other focus, harvesting and treatment tools deal with the output of the generated ideas and the ways to use them.

10 Results