Dimensions of decision-making

An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases

Andrea Ceschi*, Arianna Costantini, Riccardo Sartori, Joshua Weller, Annamaria Di Fabio

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Traditionally, studies examining decision-making heuristics and biases (H&B) have focused on aggregate effects using between-subjects designs in order to demonstrate violations of rationality. Although H&B are often studied in isolation from others, emerging research has suggested that stable and reliable individual differences in rational thought exist, and similarity in performance across tasks are related, which may suggest an underlying phenotypic structure of decision-making skills. Though numerous theoretical and empirical classifications have been offered, results have been mixed. The current study aimed to clarify this research question. Participants (N = 289) completed a battery of 17 H&B tasks, assessed with a within-subjects design, that we selected based on a review of prior empirical and theoretical taxonomies. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses yielded a solution that suggested that these biases conform to a model composed of three dimensions: Mindware gaps, Valuation biases (i.e., Positive Illusions and Negativity effect), and Anchoring and Adjustment. We discuss these findings in relation to proposed taxonomies and existing studies on individual differences in decision-making.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)188-200
JournalPersonality and Individual Differences
Volume146
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Individuality

Keywords

  • Anchoring and Adjustment
  • BOUNDED RATIONALITY
  • COGNITIVE BIASES
  • Decision-Making
  • EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS
  • Heuristics and Biases
  • INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES
  • Individual differences
  • JUDGMENT
  • Mindware gaps
  • Negativity effect
  • PSYCHOLOGY
  • Positive Illusions
  • RISK
  • SELF-ESTEEM
  • SUNK-COST
  • UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM

Cite this

Ceschi, Andrea ; Costantini, Arianna ; Sartori, Riccardo ; Weller, Joshua ; Di Fabio, Annamaria. / Dimensions of decision-making : An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases. In: Personality and Individual Differences. 2019 ; Vol. 146. pp. 188-200.
@article{f01be787b4714bae97abd573eecf6515,
title = "Dimensions of decision-making: An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases",
abstract = "Traditionally, studies examining decision-making heuristics and biases (H&B) have focused on aggregate effects using between-subjects designs in order to demonstrate violations of rationality. Although H&B are often studied in isolation from others, emerging research has suggested that stable and reliable individual differences in rational thought exist, and similarity in performance across tasks are related, which may suggest an underlying phenotypic structure of decision-making skills. Though numerous theoretical and empirical classifications have been offered, results have been mixed. The current study aimed to clarify this research question. Participants (N = 289) completed a battery of 17 H&B tasks, assessed with a within-subjects design, that we selected based on a review of prior empirical and theoretical taxonomies. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses yielded a solution that suggested that these biases conform to a model composed of three dimensions: Mindware gaps, Valuation biases (i.e., Positive Illusions and Negativity effect), and Anchoring and Adjustment. We discuss these findings in relation to proposed taxonomies and existing studies on individual differences in decision-making.",
keywords = "Anchoring and Adjustment, BOUNDED RATIONALITY, COGNITIVE BIASES, Decision-Making, EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS, Heuristics and Biases, INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES, Individual differences, JUDGMENT, Mindware gaps, Negativity effect, PSYCHOLOGY, Positive Illusions, RISK, SELF-ESTEEM, SUNK-COST, UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM",
author = "Andrea Ceschi and Arianna Costantini and Riccardo Sartori and Joshua Weller and {Di Fabio}, Annamaria",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.033",
language = "English",
volume = "146",
pages = "188--200",
journal = "Personality and Individual Differences",
issn = "0191-8869",
publisher = "PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD",

}

Dimensions of decision-making : An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases. / Ceschi, Andrea; Costantini, Arianna; Sartori, Riccardo; Weller, Joshua; Di Fabio, Annamaria.

In: Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 146, 2019, p. 188-200.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dimensions of decision-making

T2 - An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases

AU - Ceschi, Andrea

AU - Costantini, Arianna

AU - Sartori, Riccardo

AU - Weller, Joshua

AU - Di Fabio, Annamaria

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Traditionally, studies examining decision-making heuristics and biases (H&B) have focused on aggregate effects using between-subjects designs in order to demonstrate violations of rationality. Although H&B are often studied in isolation from others, emerging research has suggested that stable and reliable individual differences in rational thought exist, and similarity in performance across tasks are related, which may suggest an underlying phenotypic structure of decision-making skills. Though numerous theoretical and empirical classifications have been offered, results have been mixed. The current study aimed to clarify this research question. Participants (N = 289) completed a battery of 17 H&B tasks, assessed with a within-subjects design, that we selected based on a review of prior empirical and theoretical taxonomies. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses yielded a solution that suggested that these biases conform to a model composed of three dimensions: Mindware gaps, Valuation biases (i.e., Positive Illusions and Negativity effect), and Anchoring and Adjustment. We discuss these findings in relation to proposed taxonomies and existing studies on individual differences in decision-making.

AB - Traditionally, studies examining decision-making heuristics and biases (H&B) have focused on aggregate effects using between-subjects designs in order to demonstrate violations of rationality. Although H&B are often studied in isolation from others, emerging research has suggested that stable and reliable individual differences in rational thought exist, and similarity in performance across tasks are related, which may suggest an underlying phenotypic structure of decision-making skills. Though numerous theoretical and empirical classifications have been offered, results have been mixed. The current study aimed to clarify this research question. Participants (N = 289) completed a battery of 17 H&B tasks, assessed with a within-subjects design, that we selected based on a review of prior empirical and theoretical taxonomies. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses yielded a solution that suggested that these biases conform to a model composed of three dimensions: Mindware gaps, Valuation biases (i.e., Positive Illusions and Negativity effect), and Anchoring and Adjustment. We discuss these findings in relation to proposed taxonomies and existing studies on individual differences in decision-making.

KW - Anchoring and Adjustment

KW - BOUNDED RATIONALITY

KW - COGNITIVE BIASES

KW - Decision-Making

KW - EXPLORATORY FACTOR-ANALYSIS

KW - Heuristics and Biases

KW - INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES

KW - Individual differences

KW - JUDGMENT

KW - Mindware gaps

KW - Negativity effect

KW - PSYCHOLOGY

KW - Positive Illusions

KW - RISK

KW - SELF-ESTEEM

KW - SUNK-COST

KW - UNREALISTIC OPTIMISM

U2 - 10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.033

DO - 10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.033

M3 - Article

VL - 146

SP - 188

EP - 200

JO - Personality and Individual Differences

JF - Personality and Individual Differences

SN - 0191-8869

ER -