I´m in control of my decisions, as I´m the one making them...
Sounds logic, however, we must first understand that 40% of the "decisions" we make everyday are not really decisions, but habits that we repeat over and over in an unconscious nearly automatic fashion. That means we only have a say on the other 60% of our “decisions”.
But... are we really in control of that remaining 60%?
Sounds logic, however, we must first understand that 40% of the "decisions" we make everyday are not really decisions, but habits that we repeat over and over in an unconscious nearly automatic fashion. That means we only have a say on the other 60% of our “decisions”.
But... are we really in control of that remaining 60%?
Regardless of how optimist you are, the half-full, half-empty glass dilemma is a perfect example of a situation that requires context and perspective to be factored into the decision making process in order to decide whether we see the glass half-full or half-empty. Of course each and everyone out there may have their say depending on their perspective, but what if we could somehow influence that perspective making people see the glass the way we want them to see it?
Fortunately, or unfortunately, (depending on your perspective) we are able to modify the decision making process of people and actually, it´s something pretty easy to do.
Now, imagine the following scenario:
You are the president of Behaviourland, a nice picturesque island in the Pacific with 600 inhabitants that has been suffering of the deadly virus Alkozay. You must choose between two experimental medicines to apply on all the population in order to control the virus:
Medicine A has a 100% probability of saving 200 people.
Medicine B has a 2/3 chance of not working and killing all of the people of Behaviourland.
If you are like most of the people, you probably chose the certainty of saving 200 people with medicine A over the risky bet of killing everyone with 2/3 probability.
But, what happens if we present you with the following scenarios instead?
You are the president of Behaviourland, a nice picturesque island in the Pacific with 600 inhabitants that has been suffering of the deadly virus Alkozay. You must choose between two experimental medicines to apply on all the population in order to control the virus:
Medicine C has a 100% probability of killing 400 people.
Medicine D will save all of Behaviourland with a 1/3 probability.
Probably, this time you chose to take the risky bet of saving all of Behaviourland by choosing medicine D.
Why? If essentially both scenarios are the same, with medicines A & C resulting in the certain death of 400 people while medicines B & D are a risky bets of saving everyone with a 1/3 probability. Why is it that facing the same 2 options, our preferences are reversed from scenario 1 to scenario 2? The key lies behind the concept known as the Framing Effect.
The Framing Effect is a cognitive bias that refers to how people react differently to a situation or choice that´s been framed positively or negatively (e.g. a loss or a gain). In this particular case we see how the same option is framed as the chance of SAVING 200 people in scenario 1, vs the chance of KILLING with certainty 400 people in scenario 2, although in both we would be saving the same 200 people.
And no, if you where thinking this was due to a lack of medical expertise, I can assure you that´s not the case, as this same exercise has been applied to specialized medics with 72% of them choosing medicine A in the first scenario and 78% of them choosing medicine D in the second scenario.
Now... are you in full control of your decisions?
Fortunately, or unfortunately, (depending on your perspective) we are able to modify the decision making process of people and actually, it´s something pretty easy to do.
Now, imagine the following scenario:
You are the president of Behaviourland, a nice picturesque island in the Pacific with 600 inhabitants that has been suffering of the deadly virus Alkozay. You must choose between two experimental medicines to apply on all the population in order to control the virus:
Medicine A has a 100% probability of saving 200 people.
Medicine B has a 2/3 chance of not working and killing all of the people of Behaviourland.
If you are like most of the people, you probably chose the certainty of saving 200 people with medicine A over the risky bet of killing everyone with 2/3 probability.
But, what happens if we present you with the following scenarios instead?
You are the president of Behaviourland, a nice picturesque island in the Pacific with 600 inhabitants that has been suffering of the deadly virus Alkozay. You must choose between two experimental medicines to apply on all the population in order to control the virus:
Medicine C has a 100% probability of killing 400 people.
Medicine D will save all of Behaviourland with a 1/3 probability.
Probably, this time you chose to take the risky bet of saving all of Behaviourland by choosing medicine D.
Why? If essentially both scenarios are the same, with medicines A & C resulting in the certain death of 400 people while medicines B & D are a risky bets of saving everyone with a 1/3 probability. Why is it that facing the same 2 options, our preferences are reversed from scenario 1 to scenario 2? The key lies behind the concept known as the Framing Effect.
The Framing Effect is a cognitive bias that refers to how people react differently to a situation or choice that´s been framed positively or negatively (e.g. a loss or a gain). In this particular case we see how the same option is framed as the chance of SAVING 200 people in scenario 1, vs the chance of KILLING with certainty 400 people in scenario 2, although in both we would be saving the same 200 people.
And no, if you where thinking this was due to a lack of medical expertise, I can assure you that´s not the case, as this same exercise has been applied to specialized medics with 72% of them choosing medicine A in the first scenario and 78% of them choosing medicine D in the second scenario.
Now... are you in full control of your decisions?