Overconfidence can easily make your judgment go awry. If you're overconfident about those things, your plans are likely to go awry. Most people overestimate how much they can accomplish in a certain period of time. Do you think it will only take you one hour to finish that report? Then at the end of the day, review your estimates. Were you as accurate as you thought?
Good decision-makers recognize areas in their lives where overconfidence could be a problem. Then they adjust their thinking and their behavior accordingly. Familiarity breeds comfort.
For example, you might speed on your way to work every day. Each time you arrive safely without a speeding ticket, you become a little more comfortable with driving fast.
Or maybe you eat fast food for lunch every day. But over time, you may gain weight or experience other health issues as a consequence. Identify habits that have become commonplace. Then take some time to evaluate which of them might be harmful or unhealthy, and create a plan to develop healthier daily habits. Imagine two surgeons. The facts are the same. Take a minute to think about whether the slight change in wording affects how you view the problem. And while science shows there is plenty of value in thinking about your options, overthinking your choices can actually be a problem.
Weighing the pros and cons for too long may increase your stress level to the point that you struggle to make a decision. So consider sleeping on a problem. Or get yourself involved in an activity that takes your mind off a problem. Make it a daily habit to review the choices you made throughout the day. Look for the lessons that can be gained from each mistake you make. Keep your reflection time limited—perhaps 10 minutes per day is enough to help you think about what you can do better tomorrow.
Then take the information you've gained and commit to making better decisions moving forward. In fact, your mind has created mental shortcuts—referred to as heuristics —that help you make decisions faster.
And while these mental shortcuts keep you from toiling for hours over every little choice you make, they can also steer you wrong. The availability heuristic , for example, involves basing decisions on examples and information that immediately spring to mind.
Make it a daily habit to consider the mental shortcuts that lead to bad decisions. Acknowledge the incorrect assumptions you may make about people or events and you may be able to become a little more objective. Or you might believe you are bad at relationships, so you stop going on dates.
In this study, we only adopted gain and loss trials for the following certain combinations in which the levels of outcome magnitude and probability created equal expected values for the sure and risky options: 0.
The other side of the screen was identified as the risky side, which showed an array of five, four, three, or two cups. Selecting one cup would lead to a designated number of money gained or lost, whereas the other cups would lead to no gain or loss. For a risky choice, a random process where p equals 1 divided by the number of cups was used to determine whether one cup selected led to a nonzero outcome To make the task easy to perform, participants were not asked to choose a specific cup in the risky option but were only asked to make a choice between a risky and sure option Experimental task and procedure.
A An example of gain domain. B An example of loss domain. C Timeline of each trial. Note that the instruction phase is presented only during the first trial in each block. The formal task consisted of four blocks 2 blocks for the self and 2 blocks for the other person. These blocks were counterbalanced in order across participants. In every trial, the sure and risky options were randomly shown on the left or right side of the screen.
The participants were asked to respond carefully but as quickly as possible i. After the response and a delay ranging from 1. In each block, 45 trials were pseudo-randomly ordered, which comprised five times of repetition for each of the eight combinations and five null events mean 2.
Each participant performed trials in total. A gender-neutral name i. Participants were told that the other person was randomly selected from among the participants of another experiment. They were also informed that the other person would not make decisions for them. In actuality, as in previous studies 3 , 26 , the other person was a stranger and they would never meet.
Participants received a 50 RMB initial endowment in cash before the start of the experiment. They were told that, at the end of the experiment, the computer randomly selected one trial from the self trials, and any eventual gain or loss from the chosen trial would be added to or subtracted from the initial endowment. They were also informed that a payment would be made according to their actual choice. The participants would independently evaluate every choice because they were unaware of which trial would be selected 27 , Additionally, each participant also received a fee of RMB for their participation.
The participants completed 18 practice trials before entering the scanner to acquaint themselves with the experimental procedure and task.
We conducted separate repeated-measures ANOVA on the proportion of times that the participants chose the risky option i. The first five volumes were discarded prior to analysis to allow for magnetic stabilization. Functional data were slice-time corrected to the middle slice. The functional images were then spatially realigned to the first volume to correct for head movement. Subsequently, the anatomical image was coregistered to the mean EPI image. The coregistered anatomical image was then segmented into gray matter, white matter, and cerebrospinal fluid using a unified segmentation algorithm At the first level of analysis, we modeled eight regressors of interest and convolved these with the canonical hemodynamic response function HRF on the basis of the general linear model GLM.
The eight regressors were defined according to target self vs. The defined regressors are as follows: 1 Participants made sure choices for the self in gain situations; 2 Participants made risky choices for the self in gain situations; 3 Participants made sure choices for the self in loss situations; 4 Participants made risky choices for the self in loss situations; 5 Participants made sure choices for others in gain situations; 6 Participants made risky choices for others in gain situations; 7 Participants made sure choices for others in loss situations; 8 Participants made risky choices for others in loss situations.
The onset times were set at the start of the decision phase i. We added a parametric modulator to our GLM that scaled with reaction time RT with first order linear polynomial expansion. In addition, six motion-correction parameters were included as regressors of no interest to account for motion-related artifacts. The GLM also considered signal temporal autocorrelations with a first-order autoregressive model to improve noise estimation At the second level of analysis, the eight first-level contrast images from each participant were then analyzed in a full factorial design with target self vs.
For the reaction times B , the interaction was driven by greater differences between loss and gain situations in the decision-for-self condition than in the decision-for-other condition.
Error bars indicate standard error mean. We found a stronger activation in the right anterior cingulate cortex ACC , left dmPFC, and left insula see Supplementary Table 1 for a complete list when we compared decisions for the self to decisions for others t-contrast: self—other. No significant activation for the opposite t-contrast other—self was found in the whole-brain analysis with the defined criteria.
We found stronger activation in the left superior frontal gyrus when we compared decision making in gain situations with that in loss situations t-contrast: gain—loss.
The reverse t-contrast loss—gain revealed stronger activations in the right insula and left middle temporal gyrus. We observed higher hemodynamic activity in the left inferior temporal gyrus, left middle orbital gyrus, and left middle frontal gyrus see Supplementary Table 2 for a complete list when we compared the sure choices with risky choices t-contrast: sure—risky. The reverse t-contrast risky—sure revealed stronger activations in the left dmPFC, bilateral AI, right caudate, and bilateral precentral gyrus see Table 1 for a complete list.
Beta values across left dmPFC and bilateral AI were extracted, and the data from sure and risky choices were merged by computing their average. B Beta values of the left dmPFC as a function of decision target and situation. B Beta values of the left AI as a function of decision target and situation.
We extracted the beta values of the left dmPFC. B Beta values of the left dmPFC as a function of decision target, situation, and choice. Beta values of the dmPFC ROI was extracted, and the data from sure and risky choices were merged by computing their average.
Finally, we examined the correlation between the differences in risk rate and the differences in beta values of the dmPFC ROI for self versus other choices in both gain and loss situations. The correlation analysis revealed that the differences in risk rate for self versus other choices have a significant positive correlation with the differences in beta values of the dmPFC ROI for self versus other choices in the loss situation Fig.
Thus, people with higher dmPFC activity for self versus other choices also display greater risky choices for self versus other in the loss situation. However, the correlation between the differences in risk rate and those in beta values of the dmPFC ROI for self versus other choices in the gain situation was not significant Fig. Scatter plots of correlation between the differences in risk rate and the differences in beta values of the dmPFC ROI for self versus other choices in gain and loss situations.
A Differences in risk rate have a significant positive correlation with the differences in beta values of the dmPFC ROI for self versus other choices in the loss situation.
B Correlation between the differences in risk rate and those in beta values of the dmPFC ROI for self versus other choices was not significant in the gain situation. The present study investigated the influence of decision situation on neural responses to self—other decision-making under risk.
Participants were more risk-seeking when making decisions for themselves than for others in loss situations but were equally risk-averse in gain situations. Consistent with this pattern, the stronger activations were observed in the dmPFC and AI when making decisions for the self than for others in loss situations but not in gain situations.
Moreover, the activation in the dmPFC was stronger when people made sure choices for others than for themselves in gain situations but not when they made risky choices, and was both stronger when people made sure and risky choices for themselves than for others in loss situations.
Our findings suggest that people are highly likely to differentiate the self from others when making decisions in loss situations, and thus shedding new light on self—other differences in decision making under risk.
A plausible explanation for our findings is that the dmPFC functions in evaluating the value of risky choice for self versus others.
The activation in the dmPFC was both stronger when people made sure and risky choices for themselves than for others in loss situations, which indicates that people are more concerned with the outcomes of decisions for the self than for others in loss situations. This interpretation is supported by a previous study. Wang et al. Our findings in loss situations stand in contrast to some previous studies that implicates dmPFC in calculating the value of choice for others 1 , 3 , For instance, Jung et al.
A key difference between those previous studies and the present study is that the former used a gain task 1 , 32 or a mixed gamble task 3 that offered a variable chance of either gaining one amount of money or losing the same amount. In the present study, we adopted a task that can separate risky decision-making for gains and losses.
Moreover, and importantly, risky decision making for gains and losses represents different psychological processes and may recruit separate neural structures 15 , 20 , Thus, such task differences could potentially account for the discrepancy in the overall findings between the studies.
Our findings in gain situations support this conjecture by showing that the activation in the dmPFC was stronger when people made sure choices for others than for themselves in gain situations. The present study also revealed that the AI response was stronger when decisions were made for the self as compared with others in loss situations but not in gain situations. Our findings are in line with previous studies highlighting the key role of AI in signaling negative events, including aversive environments 34 , pain 35 , and financial loss 14 , 15 , Interestingly, our findings were also congruent with the evidence from human lesion studies indicating that patients with AI lesions show disrupted ability to use information about the probability of losses to update strategies in risky decision making 37 , as well as selective impairment in loss but not gain learning An alternative explanation for the present findings is that the stronger AI activation indicates greater loss aversion that is involved when making decisions for the self than for others in loss situations.
This explanation is supported by several other lines of evidence indicating that loss aversion is reduced when making decisions for others in a loss situation 38 , The risk-as-feelings hypothesis also suggests that people make risky decisions for themselves based on their subjective feelings toward risk, and that when they make risky decisions for others, they may base their decisions partly on their own feelings.
Nevertheless, people may have difficulty fully empathizing with that person or considering the other person to have feelings that are as strong as their own 24 , In sum, the AI may provide a fast and rough estimate for the potential of risky and sure options to result in an aversive outcome i.
At the same time, this signal prepares the organism to take action to avoid the aversive outcome. Ishii et al. They suggested that AI is causally involved in risky decision making and promotes risk taking. Thus, loss aversion is one mechanism believed to underlie an increase in risk-seeking behavior in loss situations.
Several potential limitations of this study merit comment. First, our study did not consider individual differences as a potential moderator. Individual differences in prosocial orientation 3 , 41 , impulsivity 42 , 43 , and anxiety 44 may possibly affect the degree of self—other differences in decision making under risk. Future work is needed to examine the contribution of individual difference factors to our findings.
Second, the present study did not exclude potential effects of learning from reward feedback It should be clarified in future research whether reward feedback has a different effect on risk preference for decisions for the self versus that of others.
Despite these limitations, our findings provide the first evidence that gain—loss situation modulates neural responses to self—other discrepancies in decision making under risk. We found that neural response in the dmPFC was stronger when people made sure choices for others than for themselves in gain situations, and was both stronger when people made sure and risky choices for themselves than for others in loss situations.
In addition, AI response was stronger when decisions were made for the self than for others in loss situations but not in gain situations, which may indicate that the greater loss aversion was involved when making decisions for the self than for others in loss situations.
Our work has implications for understanding addictive behavior and substance abuse. Our findings imply that the increased neural sensitivity to losses among individuals who are more risk-seeking and impulsive may result in maladaptive behavioral outcomes, such as substance abuse, drug seeking, or pathological gambling. Nicolle, A. An agent independent axis for executed and modeled choice in medial prefrontal cortex. Neuron 75 , — Ruff, C. The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making.
Nat Rev Neurosci 15 , — Jung, D. On the contrary, it has worked hard at safer highway engineering and at driver training, believing these to be the major areas for concern. That accidents are caused by unsafe roads and unsafe drivers is plausible enough. Indeed, all other agencies concerned with automotive safety, from the highway police to the high schools, picked the same targets for their campaigns. These campaigns have produced results.
The number of accidents on highways built for safety has been greatly lessened. Similarly, safety-trained drivers have been involved in far fewer accidents. But although the ratio of accidents per thousand cars or per thousand miles driven has been going down, the total number of accidents and the severity of them have kept creeping up.
It should therefore have become clear long ago that something would have to be done about the small but significant probability that accidents will occur despite safety laws and safety training. This means that future safety campaigns will have to be supplemented by engineering to make accidents themselves less dangerous. Whereas cars have been engineered to be safe when used correctly, they will also have to be engineered for safety when used incorrectly.
There is only one safeguard against becoming the prisoner of an incomplete definition: check it again and again against all the observable facts, and throw out a definition the moment it fails to encompass any of them.
Effective decision makers always test for signs that something is atypical or something unusual is happening, always asking: Does the definition explain the observed events, and does it explain all of them? They always write out what the definition is expected to make happen—for instance, make automobile accidents disappear—and then test regularly to see if this really happens. Finally, they go back and think the problem through again whenever they see something atypical, when they find unexplained phenomena, or when the course of events deviates, even in details, from expectations.
These are in essence the rules Hippocrates laid down for medical diagnosis well over 2, years ago. They are the rules for scientific observation first formulated by Aristotle and then reaffirmed by Galileo years ago. These, in other words, are old, well-known, time-tested rules, which an executive can learn and apply systematically.
The next major element in the decision process is defining clear specifications as to what the decision has to accomplish. What are the objectives the decision has to reach? What are the minimum goals it has to attain? What are the conditions it has to satisfy? Sloan, Jr. The boundary conditions of his problem demanded strength and responsibility in the chief operating positions.
This was needed as much as unity and control at the center. Everyone before Sloan had seen the problem as one of personalities—to be solved through a struggle for power from which one man would emerge victorious. The boundary conditions, Sloan realized, demanded a solution to a constitutional problem—to be solved through a new structure: decentralization which balanced local autonomy of operations with central control of direction and policy.
A decision that does not satisfy the boundary conditions is worse than one which wrongly defines the problem. It is all but impossible to salvage the decision that starts with the right premises but stops short of the right conclusions. Furthermore, clear thinking about the boundary conditions is needed to know when a decision has to be abandoned. The most common cause of failure in a decision lies not in its being wrong initially.
Rather, it is a subsequent shift in the goals—the specifications—which makes the prior right decision suddenly inappropriate. And unless the decision maker has kept the boundary conditions clear, so as to make possible the immediate replacement of the outflanked decision with a new and appropriate policy, he may not even notice that things have changed.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was bitterly attacked for his switch from conservative candidate in to radical president in The sudden economic collapse which occurred between the summer of and the spring of changed the specifications.
A policy appropriate to the goal of national economic recovery—which a conservative economic policy might have been—was no longer appropriate when, with the Bank Holiday, the goal had to become political and social cohesion. When the boundary conditions changed, Roosevelt immediately substituted a political objective reform for his former economic one recovery. Above all, clear thinking about the boundary conditions is needed to identify the most dangerous of all possible decisions: the one in which the specifications that have to be satisfied are essentially incompatible.
In other words, this is the decision that might—just might—work if nothing whatever goes wrong. But these two specifications would have been compatible with each other only if an immediate island-wide uprising against Castro would have completely paralyzed the Cuban army. And while this was not impossible, it clearly was not probable in such a tightly controlled police state. This is hoping for a miracle; and the trouble with miracles is not that they happen so rarely, but that they are, alas, singularly unreliable.
Everyone can make the wrong decision. In fact, everyone will sometimes make a wrong decision. But no executive needs to make a decision which, on the face of it, seems to make sense but, in reality, falls short of satisfying the boundary conditions. But if what will satisfy the boundary conditions is not known, the decision maker cannot distinguish between the right compromise and the wrong compromise—and may end up by making the wrong compromise. I was taught this lesson in when I started on my first big consulting assignment.
It was a study of the management structure and policies of General Motors Corporation. Alfred P. This is your task. My only instruction to you is to put down what you think is right as you see it. There is not one executive in this company who does not know how to make every single conceivable compromise without any help from you.
The effective executive knows that there are two different kinds of compromise. The purpose of bread is to provide food, and half a loaf is still food.
Half a baby, however, does not satisfy the boundary conditions. For half a baby is not half of a living and growing child. It is a waste of time to worry about what will be acceptable and what the decision maker should or should not say so as not to evoke resistance.
The things one worries about seldom happen, while objections and difficulties no one thought about may suddenly turn out to be almost insurmountable obstacles. Converting the decision into action is the fifth major element in the decision process. While thinking through the boundary conditions is the most difficult step in decision making, converting the decision into effective action is usually the most time-consuming one.
Yet a decision will not become effective unless the action commitments have been built into it from the start. Until then, it is only a good intention. Small wonder then that the people in the organization tend to view such statements cynically, if not as declarations of what top management is really not going to do.
Converting a decision into action requires answering several distinct questions: Who has to know of this decision? What action has to be taken? Who is to take it? What does the action have to be so that the people who have to do it can do it? The first and the last of these questions are too often overlooked—with dire results. A major manufacturer of industrial equipment decided several years ago to discontinue one of its models that had for years been standard equipment on a line of machine tools, many of which were still in use.
It was, therefore, decided to sell the model to present owners of the old equipment for another three years as a replacement, and then to stop making and selling it. Orders for this particular model had been going down for a good many years. But they shot up immediately as customers reordered against the day when the model would no longer be available. Consequently, nobody informed the purchasing clerk who was in charge of buying the parts from which the model itself was being assembled.
0コメント