- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 118
- Reaction score
- 0
I read this on Ken Pope's email list...interesting stuff. Any thoughts on the article, the research, psychology in the NY Times, how it applies to us as indivduals and as professionals?
Harvard professor of psychology Daniel Gilbert has an article in this
morning's *New York Times* that reviews findings from research studies
on bias in decision-making: "I'm O.K., You're Biased."
Here's the article:
VERIZON had a pretty bad year in 2005, but its chief executive did fine.
Although Verizon's earnings dropped by more than 5 percent and its stock
fell by more than a quarter, he received a 48 percent increase in salary
and compensation. This handsome payout was based on the recommendation
of an independent consulting firm that relied on Verizon (and the chief
executive's good will) for much of its revenue. When asked about this
conflict of interest, the consulting firm explained that it had "strict
policies in place to ensure the independence and objectivity of all our
consultants."
Please stop laughing.
The person who made this statement was almost certainly sincere.
Consultants believe they can make objective decisions about the
companies that indirectly employ them, just as legislators believe that
campaign contributions don't influence their votes.
Doctors scoff at the notion that gifts from a pharmaceutical company
could motivate them to prescribe that company's drugs, and Supreme Court
justices are confident that their legal opinions are not influenced by
their financial stake in a defendant's business, or by their child's
employment at a petitioner's firm. Vice President Dick Cheney is
famously contemptuous of those who suggest that his former company
received special consideration for government contracts.
Voters, citizens, patients and taxpayers can barely keep a straight
face. They know that consultants and judges are human beings who are
pulled by loyalties and pushed by animosities, and that drug reps and
lobbyists are human beings who wouldn't be generous if generosity didn't
pay dividends. Most people have been around people long enough to have a
pretty good idea of what drives their decisions, and when decision-
makers deny what seems obvious to the rest of us, the rest of us get
miffed. Sell our democracy to the highest bidder, but don't insult our
intelligence.
So who's right -- the decision-makers who claim objectivity or the
citizens who roll their eyes? Research suggests that decision-makers
don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is
compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider
evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors.
When our bathroom scale delivers bad news, we hop off and then on again,
just to make sure we didn't misread the display or put too much pressure
on one foot. When our scale delivers good news, we smile and head for
the shower. By uncritically accepting evidence when it pleases us, and
insisting on more when it doesn't, we subtly tip the scales in our favor.
Research suggests that the way we weigh ourselves in the bathroom is the
way we weigh evidence outside it. Two psychologists, Peter Ditto and
David Lopez, told subjects that they were being tested for a dangerous
enzyme deficiency. Subjects placed a drop of saliva on a test strip and
waited to see if it turned green. Some subjects were told that the strip
would turn green if they had the deficiency, and others were told that
the strip would turn green if they did not. In fact, the strip was just
an ordinary piece of paper that never changed color.
So how long did subjects stare at the strip before accepting its
conclusion? Those who were hoping to see the strip turn green waited a
lot longer than those who were hoping not to. Good news may travel
slowly, but people are willing to wait for it to arrive.
The same researchers asked subjects to evaluate a student's intelligence
by examining information about him one piece at a time. The information
was quite damning, and subjects were told they could stop examining it
as soon as they'd reached a firm conclusion. Results showed that when
subjects liked the student they were evaluating, they turned over one
card after another, searching for the one piece of information that
might allow them to say something nice about him. But when they disliked
the student, they turned over a few cards, shrugged and called it a day.
Much of what happens in the brain is not evident to the brain itself,
and thus people are better at playing these sorts of tricks on
themselves than at catching themselves in the act. People realize that
humans deceive themselves, of course, but they don't seem to realize
that they too are human.
A Princeton University research team asked people to estimate how
susceptible they and "the average person" were to a long list of
judgmental biases; the majority of people claimed to be less biased than
the majority of people. A 2001 study of medical residents found that 84
percent thought that their colleagues were influenced by gifts from
pharmaceutical companies, but only 16 percent thought that they were
similarly influenced. Dozens of studies have shown that when people try
to overcome their judgmental biases -- for example, when they are given
information and told not to let it influence their judgment -- they
simply can't comply, even when money is at stake.
And yet, if decision-makers are more biased than they realize, they are
less biased than the rest of us suspect. Research shows that while
people underestimate the influence of self-interest on their own
judgments and decisions, they overestimate its influence on others.
For instance, two psychologists, Dale Miller and Rebecca Ratner, asked
people to predict how many others would agree to give blood for free or
for $15, and people predicted that the monetary incentive would double
the rate of blood donation. But when the researchers actually asked
people to give blood, they found they were just as willing to do it for
nothing as they were for a $15 reward.
The same researchers measured people's attitudes toward smoking bans and
asked them to guess the attitudes of others. They found that smokers
vastly overestimated the support of nonsmokers for the bans, as did
nonsmokers the opposition of smokers to the bans -- in other words,
neither group was quite as self-interested as the other group believed.
Behavioral economics bolsters psychology's case. When subjects play
laboratory games that allow them to walk away with cash, self-interest
dictates that they should get all the cash they can carry. But scores of
experiments show that subjects are willing to forgo cash in order to
play nice.
For instance, when subjects are given a sum of money and told that they
can split it with an unseen stranger in any proportion they like, they
typically give the stranger a third or more, even though they could just
as easily have given him nothing. When subjects play the opposite role
and are made the recipients of such splits, they typically refuse any
split they consider grossly unfair, preferring to walk away with nothing
than to accept an unjust distribution.
In a recent study, the economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gaechter had
subjects play a game in which members of a team could earn money when
everyone pitched in. They found that subjects were willing to spend
their money just to make sure freeloaders on the team didn't earn any.
Studies such as these suggest that people act in their own interests,
but that their interests include ideals of fairness, prudence and generosity.
In short, doctors, judges, consultants and vice presidents strive for
truth more often than we realize, and miss that mark more often than
they realize. Because the brain cannot see itself fooling itself, the
only reliable method for avoiding bias is to avoid the situations that
produce it.
When doctors refuse to accept gifts from those who supply drugs to their
patients, when justices refuse to hear cases involving those with whom
they share familial ties and when chief executives refuse to let their
compensation be determined by those beholden to them, then everyone
sleeps well.
Until then, behavioral scientists have plenty to study.
Harvard professor of psychology Daniel Gilbert has an article in this
morning's *New York Times* that reviews findings from research studies
on bias in decision-making: "I'm O.K., You're Biased."
Here's the article:
VERIZON had a pretty bad year in 2005, but its chief executive did fine.
Although Verizon's earnings dropped by more than 5 percent and its stock
fell by more than a quarter, he received a 48 percent increase in salary
and compensation. This handsome payout was based on the recommendation
of an independent consulting firm that relied on Verizon (and the chief
executive's good will) for much of its revenue. When asked about this
conflict of interest, the consulting firm explained that it had "strict
policies in place to ensure the independence and objectivity of all our
consultants."
Please stop laughing.
The person who made this statement was almost certainly sincere.
Consultants believe they can make objective decisions about the
companies that indirectly employ them, just as legislators believe that
campaign contributions don't influence their votes.
Doctors scoff at the notion that gifts from a pharmaceutical company
could motivate them to prescribe that company's drugs, and Supreme Court
justices are confident that their legal opinions are not influenced by
their financial stake in a defendant's business, or by their child's
employment at a petitioner's firm. Vice President Dick Cheney is
famously contemptuous of those who suggest that his former company
received special consideration for government contracts.
Voters, citizens, patients and taxpayers can barely keep a straight
face. They know that consultants and judges are human beings who are
pulled by loyalties and pushed by animosities, and that drug reps and
lobbyists are human beings who wouldn't be generous if generosity didn't
pay dividends. Most people have been around people long enough to have a
pretty good idea of what drives their decisions, and when decision-
makers deny what seems obvious to the rest of us, the rest of us get
miffed. Sell our democracy to the highest bidder, but don't insult our
intelligence.
So who's right -- the decision-makers who claim objectivity or the
citizens who roll their eyes? Research suggests that decision-makers
don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is
compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider
evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors.
When our bathroom scale delivers bad news, we hop off and then on again,
just to make sure we didn't misread the display or put too much pressure
on one foot. When our scale delivers good news, we smile and head for
the shower. By uncritically accepting evidence when it pleases us, and
insisting on more when it doesn't, we subtly tip the scales in our favor.
Research suggests that the way we weigh ourselves in the bathroom is the
way we weigh evidence outside it. Two psychologists, Peter Ditto and
David Lopez, told subjects that they were being tested for a dangerous
enzyme deficiency. Subjects placed a drop of saliva on a test strip and
waited to see if it turned green. Some subjects were told that the strip
would turn green if they had the deficiency, and others were told that
the strip would turn green if they did not. In fact, the strip was just
an ordinary piece of paper that never changed color.
So how long did subjects stare at the strip before accepting its
conclusion? Those who were hoping to see the strip turn green waited a
lot longer than those who were hoping not to. Good news may travel
slowly, but people are willing to wait for it to arrive.
The same researchers asked subjects to evaluate a student's intelligence
by examining information about him one piece at a time. The information
was quite damning, and subjects were told they could stop examining it
as soon as they'd reached a firm conclusion. Results showed that when
subjects liked the student they were evaluating, they turned over one
card after another, searching for the one piece of information that
might allow them to say something nice about him. But when they disliked
the student, they turned over a few cards, shrugged and called it a day.
Much of what happens in the brain is not evident to the brain itself,
and thus people are better at playing these sorts of tricks on
themselves than at catching themselves in the act. People realize that
humans deceive themselves, of course, but they don't seem to realize
that they too are human.
A Princeton University research team asked people to estimate how
susceptible they and "the average person" were to a long list of
judgmental biases; the majority of people claimed to be less biased than
the majority of people. A 2001 study of medical residents found that 84
percent thought that their colleagues were influenced by gifts from
pharmaceutical companies, but only 16 percent thought that they were
similarly influenced. Dozens of studies have shown that when people try
to overcome their judgmental biases -- for example, when they are given
information and told not to let it influence their judgment -- they
simply can't comply, even when money is at stake.
And yet, if decision-makers are more biased than they realize, they are
less biased than the rest of us suspect. Research shows that while
people underestimate the influence of self-interest on their own
judgments and decisions, they overestimate its influence on others.
For instance, two psychologists, Dale Miller and Rebecca Ratner, asked
people to predict how many others would agree to give blood for free or
for $15, and people predicted that the monetary incentive would double
the rate of blood donation. But when the researchers actually asked
people to give blood, they found they were just as willing to do it for
nothing as they were for a $15 reward.
The same researchers measured people's attitudes toward smoking bans and
asked them to guess the attitudes of others. They found that smokers
vastly overestimated the support of nonsmokers for the bans, as did
nonsmokers the opposition of smokers to the bans -- in other words,
neither group was quite as self-interested as the other group believed.
Behavioral economics bolsters psychology's case. When subjects play
laboratory games that allow them to walk away with cash, self-interest
dictates that they should get all the cash they can carry. But scores of
experiments show that subjects are willing to forgo cash in order to
play nice.
For instance, when subjects are given a sum of money and told that they
can split it with an unseen stranger in any proportion they like, they
typically give the stranger a third or more, even though they could just
as easily have given him nothing. When subjects play the opposite role
and are made the recipients of such splits, they typically refuse any
split they consider grossly unfair, preferring to walk away with nothing
than to accept an unjust distribution.
In a recent study, the economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gaechter had
subjects play a game in which members of a team could earn money when
everyone pitched in. They found that subjects were willing to spend
their money just to make sure freeloaders on the team didn't earn any.
Studies such as these suggest that people act in their own interests,
but that their interests include ideals of fairness, prudence and generosity.
In short, doctors, judges, consultants and vice presidents strive for
truth more often than we realize, and miss that mark more often than
they realize. Because the brain cannot see itself fooling itself, the
only reliable method for avoiding bias is to avoid the situations that
produce it.
When doctors refuse to accept gifts from those who supply drugs to their
patients, when justices refuse to hear cases involving those with whom
they share familial ties and when chief executives refuse to let their
compensation be determined by those beholden to them, then everyone
sleeps well.
Until then, behavioral scientists have plenty to study.
