How Making Better Decisions Could Change Our Lives
Decision science is a relatively new frontier. As soon as it was understood how humans are susceptible to poor decision-making, researchers began the development of interventions in an attempt to correct these errors. Decision science interventions aim to help people to make better choices by framing those choices in a way that shifts the probability of making a particular choice more likely than another. Otherwise known as a libertarian paternalistic intervention, this type of approach intends to not only benefit the individual making the decision, but others whom that decision could affect as well (Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020).
Early research pertaining to these interventions sought to develop effective solutions to the gaps in human decision-making as we learned about them, such as the Good Judgment Project and training for emergency department physicians (Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020). Some of these interventions took the form of decision aids, or programs that organize good information for which an individual can use to inform their own decisions: for instance, decision aids that prompt social media users to reflect on the accuracy of the information they share before they share it (Pennycook et al., 2020), technology-based interventions that promote collaborative decision-making in psychiatric care (MacDonald-Wilson et al., 2021), and the identifying for the need of such interventions for college students experiencing ambiguity aversion and commitment anxiety towards their career goals (Xu & Adams, 2020).
Understanding how to create and implement effective decision-making interventions has important implications for the domains of healthcare, technology, higher education, law enforcement, and judicial practice. The following review aims to provide a concise examination of all of the above.
Libertarian Paternalist Interventions
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Libertarian paternalism is “nudging,” or influencing, an individual’s choices by framing them in a particular way without necessarily making those choices for them, that either benefit that individual and/or others, (Dworkin, 2002, Paternalism section). In decision science, libertarian paternalist interventions are those that are designed in this way, where they empower people to make better choices by essentially presenting them with good information for which to base their decisions on (Fischoff & Broomwell, 2020, p. 342). A practical example of a libertarian paternalist intervention is an antidepressant decision-aid, where various types of medication are arranged in a format that simplifies their pros and cons so that a patient is able to make an informed decision with their doctor.
Past Decision-Making Interventions Research
Early research in developing decision-aids began to develop right along with judgment research as soon as researchers realized that people may be flawed in their decision-making, (Slovic et al. 1977, as cited by Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020). That research found that informing people of their biases isn’t enough to help them make better decisions (Milkman et al. 2009, as cited by Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020), because people may lack the training needed to develop the cognitive capacity that is required to actually resist their biases. Additionally, they often default to intuitive decision-making in particular situations that elicit such, rather than deliberate decision making. Research also suggests that individuals may consider themselves exempt from falling for their biases simply because they have observed others’ exhibit theirs’ (Kahneman 2011, Kahneman & Klein 2009, as cited by Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020).
An ample amount of research exists that if people are provided with conditions that promote better decision-making, then they can be equipped to make better decisions (Murphy & Winkler, 1974, as cited by Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020; Tomassini et al., 1982, as cited by Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020); according to this research, learning is best when the learner receives direct instruction about unintuitive patterns, is given ample opportunities to practice; moreover, feedback should be unambiguous, and the learner must have appropriate incentives for learning (Fischhoff & Broomell, 2020, p. 345). Some examples of these interventions include the Good Judgement Project, where geopolitical forecasters who received decision-making training experienced an increase in accuracy and calibration; emergency department physicians, who received the same, were better able to determine whether severely, internally-injured patients required a hospital transfer or not to provide the care they needed.
Current Decision-Making Interventions Research
As demonstrated by the Good Judgment Project and ED, promoting better decision-making is highly important and applicable to nearly all fields that require human engagement. Decision-aid interventions may be designed for addressing misinformation shared across social media, collaborative decision-making in healthcare, and helping college students make career decisions that are not founded in fear.
Social Media
To understand why people share misinformation across social media, Pennycook et al. (2020) conducted a two-part study. In the first phase of the study, they found that when deciding whether to share information on social media or not, people do not consider the accuracy of what they are sharing. In addition, it was discovered that participants who both lacked scientific knowledge and who were also more likely to rely on their intuitions, performed worse at discerning between true and false content for both accuracy and when making the decision to share it. An intervention was then designed to subtly prompt participants to consider the accuracy of a news media post when deciding whether to share it or not. The results of this intervention demonstrated that the participants were more likely to share true content rather than false content after they rated the accuracy of one headline. The researchers concluded that despite the participants wanting to share true information, and being able to tell the truth from falsehood, they share misinformation because they may be distracted by social validation and reinforcement from others in their network. These findings suggest that nudging people to think about the accuracy of the information they consume is a simple, yet effective way to decrease misinformation on social media platforms.
Healthcare
Another area of decision-aid research is healthcare, where patients face important medication decisions yet are not always part of that decision-making process. Little is known about the effectiveness of technology-based interventions that promote collaborative decision-making in psychiatric care. MacDonald-Wilson et al. (2021) compared two variations of this approach: measurement-based care (utilizes standardized, patient-reports for provider decision-making), and person-centered care (utilizes patient input for provider decision-making). The results yielded statistically significant improvements in patient experience of decision-making for both measurement-based and person-centered variations; however, these interventions added little to the significance of collaborative decision-making interventions already in place, identifying the benefits and obstacles to patient-centered, decision-making interventions.
Higher Education
Decision aids may also be used to promote better decision-making models for college students Xu & Adams (2020). The researchers sought to understand how ambiguity aversion (or the avoidance of the unknown/uncertain) predicts career decision-making in college students by using a longitudinal mediation model to predict the relationship between ambiguity aversion, major, and overall life satisfaction, and job search self-efficacy upon graduation, according to the students’ commitment anxiety. The researchers found that ambiguity aversion at the start of college negatively correlated with all three of the aforementioned factors, where commitment anxiety mediated the link between them. These findings demonstrate the need for developing decision-aid interventions for incoming college students to help them make decisions about their career goals.
Conclusion
Decision-making interventions provide people with better information from which to base their decisions on by framing them in a way that makes that information more accessible. Interventions informed by research can not only improve individual decision-making but also decision-making at an organizational level. Promoting better decision-making is highly important and applicable to nearly all fields that require human engagement, therefore it has many implications. In healthcare, patient decision-aids may improve communication and subsequent treatment; if a patient has the tools needed to better understand their options, they can better communicate their needs, and their doctor may be more likely to provide the correct treatment. Decision-aids may also serve to promote citizenry by prompting people to think about the accuracy of information they consume over social media, which may carry additional implications for combatting indoctrination and radicalization. For college students, decision aids provide a framework for which to guide them in making a decision about their career aspirations, where this may have major financial implications for both the taxpayer and/or the student. Furthermore, decision-making interventions may be applied to the judicial system, law enforcement, and the military, where decisions made in these fields can often mean life or death for those that they involve.
Dworkin, G. (2002). Paternalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/paternalism/
Fischhoff, B., & Broomell, S. B. (2020). Judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 331–355. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747
Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
MacDonald-Wilson, K. L., Williams, K., Nikolajski, C. E., McHugo, G., Kang, C., Deegan, P., Carpenter-Song, E., & Kogan, J. N. (2021). Promoting collaborative psychiatric care decision-making in community mental health centers: Insights from a patient-centered comparative effectiveness trial. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 44(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000455
Xu, H., & Adams, P. (2020). Ambiguity aversion in career decision-making: Its longitudinal prediction for college career outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 67(2), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000379