Cognitive Biases
The human brain is capable of 1016 processes per second, which makes it far more powerful than any computer currently in existence.
But that doesn't mean our brains don't have major limitations. Some decisions are made after careful calculation whereas others are more intuitive. Cognitive limitations can often distort information processing.
When evidence is lacking or ambiguous, analysts evaluate hypotheses by applying their general background knowledge concerning the nature of systems and behavior.
Firstly, it's important to distinguish between cognitive biases and logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argumentation.
A cognitive bias, on the other hand, is a genuine deficiency or limitation in our thinking. It is a flaw in judgment that arises from (i.e.) errors of memory, social attribution, and miscalculations (such as statistical errors or a false sense of probability).
Paradoxically, some social psychologists believe our cognitive biases can help us process information more efficiently, especially in dangerous situations. But they lead us to make grave mistakes, more of the times. We may be prone to such errors in judgment, but at least we can be aware of them.
Cognitive biases are mental errors caused by our simplified information processing strategies.
- •
Cultural, emotional or intellectual predisposition toward a certain judgment
- •
Distinction: cultural bias, organizational bias, and bias that results from one’s own self-interest
Cognitive biases are similar to optical illusions in that the error remains compelling even when one is fully aware of its nature, but the awareness of the bias, by itself, does not produce a more accurate perception.
In short, these tendencies usually arise from:
- •
Information processing shortcuts
- •
The limited processing ability of the brain
- •
Emotional and moral motivations
- •
Distortions in storing and retrieving memories
- •
Social influence
- •
Preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information
Figure 1.
Most relevant biases groups
What happens when these dynamics apply to the social dimension, where members of a group have to make shared decisions, evaluating decision strategies, with possible conditioning of cognitive prejudices.
Specifically, a group decision‐making dynamic is based on different members in a decision‐making unit espouse a plurality of opinions and offer divergent group policy prescriptions. They can result in intragroup conflict, a disjointed decision‐making process, and decision paralysis, as each group member pushes for his or her preferred policy action.
In a group dynamic, the “risky shift” phenomenon as well as the opposite, a “cautious shift” (Stoner, 1961) can occur: individuals tend to take more or fewer risks after a group discussion.
Possible explanations can be a group polarization phenomenon (Moskovici & Zavaloni, 1969)):
- •
The extreme majority alternative gets more discussion time
- •
Responsibility is shared among individual members
- •
Extreme individuals become more extreme when they discover that their opinion is not as extreme as viewed
- •
The extreme alternative is valued higher due to group effect
- •
Groups are risk-neutral while members are risk-averse
Table 1. Examples of group decision making
| VARIABLES | DESCRIPTION |
| Context | • High stress from external threats with low hope of a better solution than the leader’s ;
• Low self-esteem temporarily induced by:
a. Recent failures;
b. Excessive difficulties on current decision-making task that lowers members’ self-efficacy;
c. Moral dilemmas: Apparent loss of feasible alternatives except ones that violate ethical standards; |
| Advantages | • Multiple views and types of expertise
• Social facilitation due to directed open discussion
• Brainstorming might lead to creative solutions |
| Disadvantages | • Often fails to equal the best individual solution
• Conformity bias (e.g., the Asch (1951-1956) 3 lines experiments)
• Groupthink (overconfidence, ignorance of facts)
• Polarization effect (e.g., “risky shift” phenomenon)
• Social loafing (pool, elevator experiments)
• In general: No optimal decision rule exists for more than 2 options |
| Defective Individual Decision-Making | • Incomplete survey of alternatives;
• Incomplete survey of objectives;
• Failure to examine risks of preferred choice;
• Failure to reappraise initially rejected alternatives;
• Poor information search;
• Selective bias in processing information at hand;
• Failure to work out contingency plans; |
| Structural Faults of the Organization | • Insulation of the group;
• Lack of tradition of impartial leadership;
• Lack of norms requiring methodical procedures;
• Homogeneity of members’ social background and ideology |
How could a Government and policy-making team, including foreign policy and national security experts, make policy decisions that lead to possible cognitive biases and negative outcomes? There are similar factors at play?
This chapter intends to provide support for the strategic versus tactical hypothesis in a strategic group decision-making, confirming how even in a clear-cut decision. It is the result of two very different, but similarly destructive, types of sub-optimal group decision-making processes at the elite level, such as the result of the phenomenon called Groupthink or of the opposite dynamic Polythink. Furthermore, their possible implementation in Foreign Policy Decision Making is analyzed. It is difficult due to a group dynamic at the other end of the decision-making continuum.