Let’s Talk Heuristics
Hearing this word for the first time? Well, you have probably been using them forever. Let’s jump in.
Heuristics: Mental shortcuts that allow us to solve problems and make decisions quickly, heuristics are simple commonsensical rules that become our default ways of making decisions quickly.
Every day we are confronted with hundreds of choices. Some decisions we research and deliberate on, but life would be exhausting if we were to do it for each choice we make. So we use heuristics which helps us in these two ways:-
1. Effort reduction
2. Fast decisions
According to Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, two pioneers in the field of behavioral science our brains use two systems of thinking. System one thinking refers to our fast, automatic, involuntary, unconscious response to situations and stimuli. It involves less mental effort and resources. Most heuristics work on system one thinking. For instance – instinctively jumping out of the way of a moving car or quickly reading a sign on the road. Then there is system two thinking, which refers to the mental network that is engaged in the deliberative, slower, careful, and reflective manner of thinking about things. We use system two thinking when trying to solve a complicated problem or make a decision objectively. For instance when composing an article for a newsletter, trying to reach a new destination, or deciding what to order for our group of friends.
Thinking of our mind processing information with these two systems is helpful in understanding how the mind works, however it is important to remember the following three things:-
1. The brain is not literally divided into two
2. System 1 and 2 work in tandem, not as separate entities : Reading about this for the first time we can get the impression that if we use system 1 we are complely ignoring system 2 to make a decision. This is not true. Almost all processes are a mix of both systems. However we may at the moment of a decision, be using one system more than the other.
3. Both systems can be biased and can make mistakes – Neither one is categorically “good” or “bad”: We assume system 2 will be immune to these biases simply because it is slower and more deliberative. This is not true, it is also prone to these errors.
We will now talk about the four most common Heuristics we use.
1. Availability Heuristic
2. Representativeness Heuristic
3. affect Heuristic
4. Anchoring Heuristic
Availability Heuristic
Let’s say you open your social media account to do some mindless scrolling, you see a friend of yours has posted about their family trip to Malaysia. Another one is posting about the amazing trip they had in Dubai. A third acquaintance has announced an article published about them and their work. You congratulate them, like the other posts. But later, after you have exited the app, and are, maybe getting ready for bed you are struck with a feeling; their life is better and happier than yours in comparison. Overestimating the happiness of others in comparison to your own, because you just saw many examples of happy moments in other people’s lives and are having a hard time recalling your own.
Kahneman and Tversky called this an availability heuristic. In their own experiment, they asked their subjects – If the letter ‘R’ is more likely to be the first letter or the third letter in a typical text? Have your answer? If you answered the first, then you performed the same reasoning as performed by a majority of subjects in their experiment. It is easier to think of words that start with an R than to think of words where the third letter is R. So we assume that a given text will probably have more words beginning with R. Even though words with r as their third letter are two times more frequent in literature.
Let us take the above paragraph as an example- Letters that begin with R – reasoning. But, letters with the third letter as R – (more, first, performed, words, etc..).
The availability heuristic talks of our tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly and easily when making decisions about the future. This heuristic helps us substitute the question “How frequent is x”- with “How frequently does x come to mind”. Depending on how easy or hard it is, we make the conclusion that it is probably very frequent or not.
Why
This occurs because people overestimate the information that they have. We also try to minimize our effort in making judgments. Certain memories are easier to recall; maybe because of repetition of experience, or their stark, vivid nature, leading us to believe the phenomena occurs more frequently than it actually does.
This is why news, and media play a big role in contributing to this error in judgment. For example, a lot of us experience anxiety while flying in planes. Mostly because media reports of plane crashes are vivid, stark, and covered extensively. Even though mathematicians and statisticians have noted it is far more likely for an average person to die in a car crash, smoking, or even unhealthy eating and exercise habits than by an airplane crashing.
When to use
It’s important to emphasize, heuristics do play an important role. Obtaining all relevant information about a situation is not always possible, moreover analyzing information and all its potential options will take up a lot of our time and resources. So the brain takes a shortcut. It estimates the frequency of a situation with how easily it comes to mind. This is what helps us make fast decisions.
For instance, you are buying an electronic device of a known and reputed brand, it’s slightly expensive, so the shopkeeper shows you a more, budget-friendly option, of a much lesser-known brand. Since you have never heard of this new brand, you decide to buy the device of the brand you trust. You probably made the correct choice.
In some situations, less frequent events come to our minds faster, which leads to errors in our judgments. That could be due to media, our cultural context, past experiences, etc.
Where to avoid
As we have seen, this bias does help us, so instead of overcoming it, I believe it’s better to understand it and know when we are likely to use it, so we can mitigate its effects when making decisions. As illustrated in the examples we use this shortcut, when evaluating ourselves and others (social media), making decisions about buying products. We also use this shortcut in making judgments about our politics, medical decisions, etc… These are some situations we can be aware of and take our call on when we would like to lessen our reliance on this shortcut.
How to mitigate
Being aware of the heuristic is the first step but it is not enough. Since it is tenacious and present in a lot of our reasoning, it is hard to even recognize when we use it.
1. As we know there are two systems of thinking. System one; is fast and automatic. It is where we use most heuristics. System two thinking is logical, slower, careful, and reflective. Only through reflection, are people able to realize that their quick approximations are skewed. First step is to recognize when we use this heuristic. We will talk about how to do this a little later. Once we recognise, we will then need to practice using deliberate, careful reasoning when making decisions in uncertain situations.
2. In group decision making we avoid this heuristic by appointing a devil’s advocate, who, despite their personal beliefs, is appointed to pick apart the idea and bring opposing information and its demerits to the forefront. In the same way, we can counteract this heuristic by actively seeking information that is opposed to the ideas and beliefs we hold.
3. On a larger scale, the solution remains similar. Having a specialized team who work with the knowledge of heuristics and on its role in public policy, institutional behavior or media output can achieve more logical outcomes wherever human behavior is concerned.
Before we go any further, I will reiterate we are not perfect, so we won’t be able to take all decisions perfectly. Moreover, there isn’t enough time in the day for us to be able to analyze and research every problem we come across. So while we are trying to mitigate the effects of this and the coming heuristics and biases, let’s cut ourselves some slack. Now, let’s move on to the next heuristic.
Representative heuristics
Imagine I have a hundred profiles of some people. Seventy profiles are of lawyers and thirty profiles are of engineers. I pull out two at random. Let’s say they are, Sanjeev and Rohan.
Sanjeev is an articulate man, well versed in politics, he likes reading. He enjoys people and is outgoing and easy to talk to. He is also known to have an opinion about any subject you discuss with him – Is he a lawyer or an engineer?
Rohan is 30, married. He is well-liked by his peers and is described as a highly motivated employee, He enjoys staying indoors and spends his free time with his family – Lawyer or engineer?
You probably compared the information of the two people to existing models (or mental prototypes) you hold of a lawyer and an engineer. Based on that Sanjeev is closer to a typical model of a lawyer than Rohan, even though there is no rule that engineers cannot be outgoing or well versed in politics. It is also likely that when making this judgment the base information given of having far more lawyers than engineers was ignored, this phenomenon of ignoring the base information is called the base rate fallacy, we will talk about it later. For those who are still wondering, they are both lawyers.
Representative heuristic happens when we’re trying to make judgments about a certain person or target, by trying to categorize them based on our mental models of how closely they resemble the typical person in that category. We ignore other relevant information in favor of our arbitrary categories.
The Why and The Advantage
We form these typical examples of an event, category, or thing based on our past experiences with the same. For instance, if you have already met a few lawyers in your life and they happened to fit the profile of Rahul, you now have an unconscious prototype of lawyers based on that experience.
We often use this heuristic because we generally operate with limited resources, and rarely have the complete information about any situation. So we conserve energy and resources by using this heuristic.
The Disadvantage
When relying on representativeness we often ignore other kinds of information available about the person/situation.
The representativeness heuristic can contribute to prejudice and systemic discrimination. If we rely on categories and prototypes to guide our perception of others, we will easily end up drawing on stereotypes to make judgments about other people.
Situations
1. Work: This heuristic can effect many decisions in the workplace- when judging colleagues, making recruitment decisions, meeting new employees, etc.
2. Social: This heuristic can lead us to make quick and inaccurate judgments of new people we meet in our life. A new aquaintance, a date. It can also lead us to judge situations regarding our peers incorrectly. For instance if a friend or family member tells us they are depressed, they are often met with statements like “but you were so happy yesterday, when I saw you with your friends, and you are eating quite well from what i have seen, maybe you are just sad, you will be fine” because they dont fit our mental model of someone who is “depressed”. This can also influence you to make the same inaccurate judgment’s in your personal life.
3. We use this heuristic when choosing doctors, political candidates, judging our uber drivers etc. When we rely on these prototypes to often we start believing they are facts, which can lead to stereotyping people, prejudice and discrimination. So it is important to keep this heuristic in mind when meeting new people.
Mitigate this heuristic
To avoid over-reliance on the representative heuristic:-
1. Knowing about it and when we use it, is a strong first step. A way to check it, is asking yourself, why and how, you came to a conclusion about someone. For instance, if you thought of Sanjeev as a lawyer- are articulate and outgoing enough coordinates to make that judgement? What more information will you need?
2. We should also teach ourselves more about statistics and logical thinking. Scientific ways of thinking asks us to look for evidence and to keep experimenting and testing till we find relevant data. It will take effort but it will train our brains to not rely on shortcuts and always look for evidence and keep testing that evidence for validity.
3. Another way is to ask others to point out instances where we might be relying too much on representativeness. Do this only if you are ready to hear information you might not want to.
We will now discuss Affect Heuristic.
Your friend Raghav has received the news that he has been invited to perform a stand-up comedy show at a prestigious club in town. Raghav has always had a passion for writing and performing comedy, and this would be a big opportunity for him. However, the day he received the invitation, was the same day he was yelled at by his boss, at his regular workplace. Raghav had failed to achieve his monthly targets, which was also bad news for his team, as the region head had very loudly informed him, in front of everyone. Raghav was naturally very upset about this. Not only was he angry and frustrated, but, his self-esteem had taken a serious hit. As a result, he impulsively told the club, that he was not interested in the opportunity to perform that day.
The affect heuristic: When we use this heuristic, we rely on our emotions, rather than objective information in making decisions. So we reach a conclusion quickly and easily, but since the choice is emotional it can distort our thinking and lead us to irrational decisions. For instance when looking for a house to rent we often see if the house is a happy house, a comfy house, or has an ‘off vibe” about it.
Uses
We see a lot of public welfare advertisements that appeal to human emotions. Warning against alcohol, or even getting children, polio drops, vaccinated, appealing to the public to use toilets, and saving water are all messages we have seen wrapped in emotional messaging.
The classic example of this is anti-smoking campaigns. Packets of cigarettes have images of the lungs, mouths, and teeth of long-time smokers, to deter people from smoking. Additionally, public health campaigns stress the severity of the consequences of smoking, with stories of people with lung cancer. These campaigns are aimed at inciting negative emotions like fear and disgust and have been proven to push people to reduce smoking. Here, we see how the affect heuristic is used in a positive way. To emphasize the very serious consequences of smoking.
When to avoid
On the other hand, the affect heuristic can also result in challenges. for instance:-
• Being unduly influenced by emotional advertisements for life insurance, and deciding to take insurance for highly unlikely events, resulting in a costlier investment than was probably required.
• Getting unnecessary tests and medical procedures, because of fear-based reasoning
• Someone in a leadership position or someone in charge of policymaking is being given an important decision to make and them using emotion instead of common sense and logic to reach a conclusion. This is more likely if they are tired or are under time pressure, as we tend to rely on heuristics more when we do not have sufficient mental resources to make an effortful, well-reasoned decision.
Mitigation
• Whenever possible, especially when faced with big decisions. We must take the time to logically think about our choices and consider our options carefully, without relying on these shortcuts..
• Furthermore, being aware of one’s emotional state is useful for avoiding the affect heuristic. If we can recognize and acknowledge that we are feeling a certain way, such as happy, sad, angry, frustrated we will know how our judgment is likely to be affected and take measures accordingly. For instance, when we are happy we tend to ignore the negatives, so we can force ourselves to acknowledge the demerits of an option when making decisions in our joyful state.
• Finally, if we’re ever given an important decision to make when we’re feeling particularly emotional, whether it is a positive emotion or a negative one, it may be a good idea to put off making the decision until our emotional state is closer to neutral. This will help to ensure that our choice is not impacted by extreme emotions.
Lastly we will talk about Anchoring Heuristic.
You have gone to buy your mother a present, and you are aware she likes perfumes. Having never bought perfume before, you ask the store clerk for their opinion. They show you a bottle of perfume of a popular brand, worth 4000/- rupees. This is too expensive for you, so you ask them to show you other options in the same brand. You end up buying a bottle of perfume worth 2500/- rupees relieved you got something a lot cheaper.
However, is the bottle of perfume you bought cheap? You were influenced by the first information presented to you and compared your final purchase to the “anchor” provided to you. by the clever store clerk. This is because the first information presented to us greatly affects our future decision.
Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic. So when we go about researching, making plans, or setting estimates we get influenced by our anchor, which is the piece of information we see first. This can skew our judgment, and prevent us from updating our plans or predictions as much as we should.
Why
This theory relies on priming, another prevalent effect in psychology. When people are first exposed to any new stimulus, the areas of the brain related to that concept remain activated for some time, so we become primed toward this new thing. It is often used as a motivation tool. Some managers start meetings by peppering terms like organized, thorough, careful, etc. this helps prime the members to be more organized.
In criminal court cases, prosecutors will set a certain length of sentence to demand in court for the accused. Research shows these demands can become anchors that bias the judge’s decisions.
Situations
Decision-making in groups is seen to be highly influenced by the anchoring effect. For example: If the group is trying to decide on some problems they are facing. The choices they make will very likely be influenced by the first solution presented. You must have seen in meetings after an event when the team assembles to assess the event and its execution, the tone of the meeting is set by the first person to give an opinion. If their feedback happens to be critical, the rest of the group is inclined to give more negative feedback than they would have originally.
The same happens during negotiations. As an example, in salary negotiations, you may have noticed, that the first offer presented sets the bar for the discussion. So if you hesitate in putting forth your expectations, the anchoring heuristic will tell you to lay down your cards first.
Financial Decisions: buying a new car, a house, or even a perfume can be influenced by this heuristic. If the first price you hear is high, you will in all likelihood, end up paying a higher price than might have been required.
Personal decisions about things like say- how much screen time should you allow your children? can be influenced by the knowledge that your friends allow four hours of screen time for their kids. Or if you are trying to make a decision of how much exercise you should do each day, and you read that twenty minutes of exercise is enough three times a week, you are unlikely to set a higher goal.
To lessen its effects
One strategy to combat anchoring bias is, to come up with reasons why that anchor is inappropriate for the situation. Take the study of when car experts were asked to judge the resale price of a car. The value of the car was set either too high or too low. Some participants were told to come up with arguments against the anchor price. Only the participants given this extra instruction showed weaker susceptibility to the anchoring effects, compared with the others.
We have gone through the four comon heuristics we face, and how to mitigate the effect of each in our lives. Before I end this article, i will again emphasize the many advantages of heuristics
We use heuristics to make decisions quickly in situations where:-
1. We are short on time: We will not always have the time to weigh out pro’s and cons. In these situations we rely on our past experiences, or mental models to make accurate decisions at that moment.
2. We lack resources: In most situations, we will not have all relevant information. We might also not have the resources to get this information. In these scenarios, that are rife with uncertainty, our minds help us by bringing forth the closest examples in our own lives that resemble this situation, and finding a solution through that example.
3. Situations that lack objective evaluations: For instance when deciding about our preferences or making choices between options that seem equally good or bad. There is no measurement on how good a yellow sweater is, or how to evaluate if food cooked at home is better than the restaurant. So we use shortcuts or rely on our emotions to make judgements we can trust.
4. Heuristics save us time and effort in making predictions and taking decisions in our lives. They serve a purpose which is why we have them in the first place.
In conclusion, the point of this course is not to vilify ourselves or the flaws we rely on. We need to only understand ourselves as flawed decision-makers and make efforts in the aspects of our lives we want to make better judgment calls.
On that note, I leave you slightly wiser, with the knowledge of how our thought processes work. But these are not the only ways in which we cloud our judgements. to read about the other ways we do so, please read the article on cognitive biases and cognitive distortions.
References
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Heuristics and biases https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/heuristics/
System 1 and System 2 Thinking. (n.d.). The Marketing Society. https://www.marketingsociety.com/think-piece/system-1-and-system-2-thinking#_ftn1
Availability Heuristic https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/availability-heuristic/
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.ap a.org/behavioral-economics
Gleason, C. (2021, Nov 03). Availability Heuristic and Decision Making. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/availability-heuristic.html
Weintraub, P. (2010, April 8). The doctor who drank infectious broth gave himself an ulcer and solved a medical mystery. Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mystery
Representativeness Heuristic https://dictionary.apa.org/representativeness-heuristic
Why do we use similarity to gauge statistical probability? https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/representativeness-heuristic/
What Is the Representativeness Heuristic? https://www.verywellmind.com/representativeness-heuristic-2795805
Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1996, March/April). Like goes with like: The role of representativeness in erroneous and pseudoscientific beliefs. The Skeptical Inquirer. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Gilovich/publication/288842297_Like_goes_with_like_The_role_of_representativeness_in_erroneous_and_pseudo-scientific_beliefs/links/5799542208ae33e89fb0c80c/Like-goes-with-like-The-role-of-representativeness-in-erroneous-and-pseudo-scientific-beliefs.pdf
The affect heuristic https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/affect-heuristic/
The Affect Heuristic and Decision Making https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-affect-heuristic-2795028
Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation. The Anchoring Effect and How It Can Impact Negotiations, https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/the-drawbacks-of-goals/
Simmons, Joseph P.; LeBoeuf, Robyn A.; Nelson, Leif D. (2010). The Effect of Accuracy Motivation on Anchoring and Adjustment: Do People Adjust from Provided Anchors?
Anchoring and Adjustment https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anchoring-and-adjustment.asp
Feng; Arnott, David; Gao, Shijia (2019-04-03). “The anchoring effect in business intelligence supported decision-making”. Journal of Decision Systems. 28 (2): 67–81. doi:10.1080/12460125.2019.1620573. ISSN1246-0125. S2CID182259743. Anchoring Definition,