Sample 2

People are prone to errors in thinking and decision-making due to the way we process information. There are trends in how we make these errors;  those trends are called cognitive biases. These errors often occur as we are cognitive misers so we prefer to quickly come up with an answer as opposed to logically think through a problem.  The Dual Processing Model explains this as a tendency to choose System 1 over System 2 thinking. System one thinking is faster, but is more prone to being incorrect. Two examples of cognitive biases are anchoring bias and the peak-end rule. Anchoring bias is when we base our estimates around a given value (the anchor) even if the value is implausible or highly unlikely. We do this because we are uncertain of how to make a decision so we use the anchor as a reference point for making what we believe is our own decision. The peak-end rule is about how we tend to remember things either at the peak of experience or at the end. This is done because we have difficulties remembering the average experience over time, so we make decisions based on the most salient information.

Strack and Mussweiler did a study of anchoring bias where they asked participants to estimate the age when Gandhi died.  The researchers asked whether the participants thought he died before or after a certain age. The participants were in one of four conditions: a plausible high anchor, a plausible low anchor, and implausible high anchor or an implausible low anchor. The researchers found that participants given the low anchors consistently guessed lower values for Gandhi’s age of death even when the low anchor was implausible. Those with the high anchor consistently guessed higher values for Gandhi’s age of death, but the implausibly high anchor value did not seem to have as great an effect. This could be because it was not possible - it was 140 years old. This seems to indicate that anchoring bias plays a strong role in decision making, unless it is completely unreasonable.

This study is strong in that there is a clear manipulation of variables; the researchers can know it was, in fact, the high or low anchor that impacted the results. However, there is the question of ecological validity because the study is highly artificial and Gandhi’s age at death would most likely be a meaningless piece of information to the participants. It seems logical that the participants with nothing else to go on would base their estimates on an anchor value. But in the real world, they would most likely have some idea whatever it was they were estimating. In addition, real decisions may come with a cost (like making a bid on a house). This means that there would be other ways to make a decision besides relying on an anchor value. For important decisions, they people usually consult with friends or family.

Kahneman did a lab experiment on the peak-end rule to see how the end of an experience would impact participants recollections of it - and thus affect decision-making. In the first stage of the experiment, participants placed their hands in freezing cold water for one minute. After a short break, he had them do it again, but this time after one minute he released warm water into the tank raising the temperature slightly. The researchers asked the participants which of the two conditions they would be most willing to do again. The majority of the participants chose the second condition even though they had to put their hands in the freezing water for the same amount of time in both conditions. The researchers suggested that this was because the participants based their decision on the end of the second condition rather than reflecting on the overall experience.

This study was done in a highly controlled environment, so the researchers were able to control for confounding variables. The study was carried out in the lab so there is the question of ecological validity. The study is highly artificial and it is questionable to what real-life situations it could be applied. Secondly, there is a question as to how the participants gauged time during the experiment.  Perhaps as they were familiar with the feeling of the cold water from the first condition, the second condition felt shorter and their decision was not made due to the peak-end rule.

Although both studies have the problem of low ecological validity, they were also supported by other research suggesting these biases do occur in real life. It is important for us to recognize our errors and thinking as it will help us to live better lives. Unfortunately, we are prone to making incorrect illogical judgments.