Dimensions of decision-making: An evidence-based classification of heuristics and biases

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 stabl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPersonality and individual differences Vol. 146; pp. 188 - 200
Main Authors Ceschi, Andrea, Costantini, Arianna, Sartori, Riccardo, Weller, Joshua, Di Fabio, Annamaria
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2019
Elsevier Science Ltd
Subjects
Anchoring
Anchoring and Adjustment
Between-subjects design
Bias
Classification
Decision making
Heuristic
Heuristics and Biases
Illusions
Individual differences
Mindware gaps
Negativity effect
Positive Illusions
Rationality
Task performance
Taxonomy
Valuation
Violations
Heuristics and Biases
Positive Illusions
Negativity effect
Mindware gaps
Individual differences
Decision-Making
Anchoring and Adjustment
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0191-8869
1873-3549
DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.033