Training fast and frugal heuristics in military decision making

Heuristics in sport: A scoping review

Judgement and decision-making under uncertainty often rely on simplistic" rules of thumb", known as "heuristics". The purpose of this scoping review is to explore the extant literature focussed on heuristics and sport. This study employed a five-stage scoping review methodology. The databases searched were Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and PsycInfo. The search terms were sport*, heuristic* (and its synonyms: cognitive shortcut, shortcut, rule of thumb, mental rule, cognitive rule) plus cognitive bias. The search identified 2019 studies, of which 38 were included in the analysis. Studies based in USA and Germany were most common. The use of heuristics by players were most common, while football (soccer) and basketball were the most frequently researched sport contexts. Both males and females were commonly included in most studies, but there were no studies with an explicit focus on females. The research was contextualized within several academic disciplines (e.g., psychology, forecasting, JDM, organization behavior, sports marketing and sponsorship, coaching science, risk analysis and sociology). Approximately 80 % of the studies were quantitative. Sixteen studies examined the fast and frugal heuristics approach (i.e., take-the-first heuristic (n = 8), recognition heuristic (n = 7), or gut instinct (n = 1), whereas eleven articles embraced the heuristics and biases approach. Future research should pursue a greater variety of heuristics, investigate the use of heuristics by selectors and boards of directors, and how best to design, implement, and evaluate heuristic education programs.

Successful everyday decision making: Combining attributes and associates

How do people make everyday decisions in order to achieve the most successful outcome? Decision making research typically evaluates choices according to their expected utility. However, this research largely focuses on abstract or hypothetical tasks and rarely investigates whether the outcome is successful and satisfying for the decision maker. Instead, we use an everyday decision making task in which participants describe a personally meaningful decision they are currently facing. We investigate the decision processes used to make this decision, and evaluate how successful and satisfying the outcome of the decision is for them. We examine how well analytic, attribute-based processes explain everyday decision making and predict decision outcomes, and we compare these processes to associative processes elicited through free association. We also examine the characteristics of decisions and individuals that are associated with good decision outcomes. Across three experiments we found that: 1) an analytic decision analysis of everyday decisions is not superior to simpler attribute-based processes in predicting decision outcomes; 2) contrary to research linking associative cognition to biases, free association generates valid cues that predict choice and decision outcomes as effectively as attribute-based approaches; 3) contrary to research favouring either attribute-based or associative processes, combining both attribute-based and associates best explains everyday decisions and most accurately predicts decision outcomes; and 4) individuals with a tendency to attempt analytic thinking do not make more successful everyday decisions. Instead, frequency, simplicity, and knowledge of the decision predict success. We propose that attribute-based and associative processes, in combination, both explain everyday decision making and predict successful decision outcomes.