3 Strategies for Making Better, More Informed Decisions

Francesca Gina

Harvard Business Review

Originally published 25 May 23

Here is an excerpt:

Think counterfactually about previous decisions you’ve made.

Counterfactual thinking invites you to consider different courses of action you could have taken to gain a better understanding of the factors that influenced your choice. For example, if you missed a big deadline on a work project, you might reflect on how working harder, asking for help, or renegotiating the deadline could have affected the outcome. This reflection can help you recognize which factors played a significant role in your decision-making process — for example, valuing getting the project done on your own versus getting it done on time — and identify changes you might want to make when it comes to future decisions.

The 1998 movie Sliding Doors offers a great example of how counterfactual thinking can help us understand the forces that shape our decisions. The film explores two alternate storylines for the main character, Helen (played by Gwyneth Paltrow), based on whether she catches an upcoming subway train or misses it. While watching both storylines unfold, we gain insight into different factors that influence Helen’s life choices.

Similarly, engaging in counterfactual thinking can help you think through choices you’ve made by helping you expand your focus to consider multiple frames of reference beyond the present outcome. This type of reflection encourages you to take note of different perspectives and reach a more balanced view of your choices. By thinking counterfactually, you can ensure you are looking at existing data in a more unbiased way.

Challenge your assumptions.

You can also fight self-serving biases by actively seeking out information that challenges your beliefs and assumptions. This can be uncomfortable, as it could threaten your identity and worldview, but it’s a key step in developing a more nuanced and informed perspective.

One way to do this is to purposely expose yourself to different perspectives in order to broaden your understanding of an issue. Take Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft. When he assumed the role in 2014, he recognized that the company’s focus on Windows and Office was limiting its growth potential. Not only did the company need a new strategy, he recognized that the culture needed to evolve as well.

In order to expand the company’s horizons, Nadella sought out talent from different backgrounds and industries, who brought with them a diverse range of perspectives. He also encouraged Microsoft employees to experiment and take risks, even if it meant failing along the way. By purposefully exposing himself and his team to different perspectives and new ideas, Nadella was able to transform Microsoft into a more innovative and customer-focused company, with a renewed focus on cloud computing and artificial intelligence.

The info is here.

Mental control and attributions of blame for negligent wrongdoing

Murray, S., Krasich, K., et al. (2022).

Journal of Experimental Psychology: 

General. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001262

Abstract

Third-personal judgments of blame are typically sensitive to what an agent knows and desires. However, when people act negligently, they do not know what they are doing and do not desire the outcomes of their negligence. How, then, do people attribute blame for negligent wrongdoing? We propose that people attribute blame for negligent wrongdoing based on perceived mental control, or the degree to which an agent guides their thoughts and attention over time. To acquire information about others’ mental control, people self-project their own perceived mental control to anchor third-personal judgments about mental control and concomitant responsibility for negligent wrongdoing. In four experiments (N = 841), we tested whether perceptions of mental control drive third-personal judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing. Study 1 showed that the ease with which people can counterfactually imagine an individual being non-negligent mediated the relationship between judgments of control and blame. Studies 2a and 2b indicated that perceived mental control has a strong effect on judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing and that first-personal judgments of mental control are moderately correlated with third-personal judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing. Finally, we used an autobiographical memory manipulation in Study 3 to make personal episodes of forgetfulness salient. Participants for whom past personal episodes of forgetfulness were made salient judged negligent wrongdoers less harshly compared with a control group for whom past episodes of negligence were not salient. Collectively, these findings suggest that first-personal judgments of mental control drive third-personal judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing and indicate a novel role for counterfactual thinking in the attribution of responsibility.

Conclusion

Models  of  blame  attribution  predict  that  judgments  of  blame  for  negligent  wrongdoing  are sensitive to the perceived  capacity of the individual  to  avoid being negligent. In  this paper, we explored two extensions of these models. The first is that people use perceived degree of mental control to inform judgments of blame for negligent wrongdoing. Information about mental control is acquired through self-projection. These results suggest a novel role for counterfactual thinking in attributing blame, namely that counterfactual thinking is the process whereby people self-project to acquire information that is used to inform judgments of blame.

A pdf of the research is here.

The One That Got Away: Overestimation of Forgone Alternatives as a Hidden Source of Regret

Feiler, D., & Müller-Trede, J. (2022).

Psychological Science, 33(2), 314–324.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211032657

Abstract

Past research has established that observing the outcomes of forgone alternatives is an important driver of regret. In this research, we predicted and empirically corroborated a seemingly opposite result: Participants in our studies were more likely to experience regret when they did not observe a forgone outcome than when it was revealed. Our prediction drew on two theoretical observations. First, feelings of regret frequently stem from comparing a chosen option with one’s belief about what the forgone alternative would have been. Second, when there are many alternatives to choose from under uncertainty, the perceived attractiveness of the almost-chosen alternative tends to exceed its reality. In four preregistered studies (Ns = 800, 599, 150, and 197 adults), we found that participants predictably overestimated the forgone path, and this overestimation caused undue regret. We discuss the psychological implications of this hidden source of regret and reconcile the ostensible contradiction with past research.

Statement of Relevance

Reflecting on our past decisions can often make us feel regret. Previous research suggests that feelings of regret stem from comparing the outcome of our chosen path with that of the unchosen path.  We present a seemingly contradictory finding: Participants in our studies were more likely to experience regret when they did not observe the forgone outcome than when they saw it. This effect arises because when there are many paths to choose from, and uncertainty exists about how good each would be, people tend to overestimate the almost-chosen path. An idealized view of the path not taken then becomes an unfair standard of comparison for the chosen path, which inflates feelings of regret. Excessive regret has been found to be associated with depression and anxiety, and our work suggests that there may be a hidden source of undue regret—overestimation of forgone paths—that may contribute to these problems.

The ending...

Finally, is overestimating the paths we do not take causing us too much regret? Although regret can have

benefits for experiential learning, it is an inherently negative emotion and has been found to be associated with depression and excessive anxiety (Kocovski et al., 2005; Markman & Miller, 2006; Roese et al., 2009). Because the regret in our studies was driven by biased beliefs, it may be excessive—after all, better-calibrated beliefs about forgone alternatives would cause less regret. Whether calibrating beliefs about forgone alternatives could also help in alleviating regret’s harmful psychological consequences is an important question for future research.

The research is here.

Important implications for psychotherapy....