Complex processes, structures, and environmental interactions characterize contemporary institutions and organizations. One challenge economists, analysts, and marketers face is understanding the decision-making process. Likewise, scholars have shown increased interest in understanding decision-making outcomes to make better theoretical predictions, develop effective strategies, and suggest better public policies (Jiménez & Brocos, 2021). Consider behavioral complexities of the business context, in which people are situated, are reflected in their decision-making and behavioral mechanisms. In this sense, individual decision compromises different selves in a complex context. For example, senior management often considers the company’s needs, available resources, staff capabilities, and the company’s vision, mission, and environment while making a corporate decision. The processes entailed in decision-making involve cognitive processes underlying arguments and choices.
Interpersonal Theories
The Naïve Scientist and Attribution Approach
Social cognition broadly describes how people process, encode and use information to make sense of others’ behavior in social contexts. How a person organizes and uses social information is crucial in understanding personal and group processes, conformity, and social identity. Humans are rational and can solve complex problems using sophisticated logic to develop solutions and construct arguments (McAlaney & Benson, 2020). Therefore, people apply these principles in everyday activities and social thoughts. Heider believed people are motivated to form coherent worldviews and gain control (Hareli & Hess, 2019). He further argued that the search for stability, consistency, management, and prediction forces people to behave like naive scientists, logically and rationally testing the hypotheses of decision-making. For example, observed events attribute causes to effects in efforts to create an environment that makes sense based on theoretical approaches. Generally, people have a basic need for causality since it ascribes meaning to the world, making it predictable and transparent, thus minimizing uncertainty.
Following the attribution theory, Heider argued that people’s basic need drives social inference. In an experiment, Heider asked participants to describe the movement of geometric shapes. The scholar established a tendency to convey movement, suggesting human motives (Hareli & Hess, 2019). In addition, the readiness to ascribe people’s intentions in matters they have little capacity for is a common characteristic of people’s reason. Therefore, the apparent need to link causality to decision-making was the basis for Heider’s work in an attempt to model how people explain their actions to others. Most decisions rely on others’ advice, which preceded them in status, age, and experience. For example, before implementing a policy, political leaders usually dialogue with other countries that use such approaches to determine their effectiveness. The same applies when making a financial decision, such that people take advice from friends and family on investing, balancing their portfolio, and saving for their future. While some advice people get from experts, they often make decisions based on uninformed advice from those close to them.
Arguments are central in shaping people’s decisions and in the direction of rational theories. Further, social cognition revolves around one’s apparent level of performance and relatively complex tasks in social contexts. In this respect, the naïve scientist model captures the theoretical aspect of understanding cognition and individual decision-making (McAlaney & Benson, 2020). Accordingly, social awareness has a substantial overlap with Miser’s model. The cognitive Miser typically reveals the limited mental resources of social thinkers and the growing demand for efficient information processing. Every person is a cognitive miser due to their tendency to default in processing information.
Cognitive Miser
More specifically, miserly cognitive tendencies have gained traction for computational efficiency, which simultaneously guarantees that people might be irrational during decision-making. The primary goal of evolution was to maximize human beings’ happiness, including their state of reason. In consequence, development does not guarantee rationality as used in cognitive science. Conversely, natural selection adopts a better principle than maximization. While natural selection looks at the immediate advantage, human rationality incorporates the individual’s short- and long-term interests (Schumer et al., 2018). For example, the domain of goals and beliefs does not need maximum accuracy in tracking change to ensure ethical argumentation. Taking another case, people’s mechanisms for storing and using energy no longer serve their goal in the modern technological society where fast-food restaurants are practically everywhere. The objectives underlying such mechanisms have become detached from rational standards and argumentation.
When individuals want to know about their abilities and skills, they judge themselves relative to others. According to Brosowsky and Egner (2021), the characterization of every individual as a cognitive miser implies that they strive to process information efficiently while consuming limited mental resources. Furthermore, the human mind lacks knowledge, cognitive resources, and attention. In light of this, people often engage in more socio-economical rather than more elaborate decision-making mechanisms, compromising the accuracy of information processing. Nonetheless, evolutionary history does not fully guarantee that miserly processing results in optimal processing. Most of the evolutionary defaults of the cognitive Miser may not serve optimally serve people in the contemporary world, such as in making employment and financial decisions in a radically changing environment.
Although people might fail to attain optimal solutions or make accurate judgments, the effort involved in such processes is worth noting. In balancing the options during decision-making, process efficiency plays an essential role. For example, if an individual is willing to invest some effort, efficient processes may be preferred over accuracy. Consistent with the naïve scientist model, people use certain strategies under specific circumstances to guide decision-making. The cognitive miser approach attests that people rely on these strategies to process information (Brosowsky & Egner, 2021) rapidly. For instance, instead of demonstrating how people ignore primary statistical data to make inferences, they should focus on what they rely on to guide their decisions. The naïve scientist’s and cognitive Miser’s perspectives help gain an in-depth understanding of information processing and decision-making.
Type 1 and 2 Thinking
Kahneman’s model divides the mind into two distinct structures, systems 1 and 2, which involve type 1 and 2 thinking. The first scheme involves the brain’s intuitive, automatic, and fast approach. It contains an innate review, which individuals are born with, such as recognizing objects, avoiding losses, fearing animals, and preparedness to distinguish the environment around us (Van et al., 2019). Through prolonged practice, other mental activities become automatic and fast. In the second system, analyzing is much slower, and reasoning becomes more dominant (Van et al., 2019). Type two thinking emerges when unnatural deeds occur hence the need for conscious mental exercise. The model is not preferable in decision-making compared to the ELM, which gives options to adjust and make conclusions based on the period available.
Decision-Making Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) proposes two approaches to persuade individuals to change their attitudes. It elaborates on how humans process stimuli differently and how this affects the behaviors and attitudes of the involved (Van et al., 2019). The two routes the theory proposes are central and peripheral path processing. Decision-making is much easier under the first avenue as the level of elaboration is much higher. The audience examines the information provided while weighing the impacts it contains (Griffith et al., 2018). A decision is finally made after all considerations are made. The negative and positive results of the message are identified. The second route involves low elaboration, as the audience does not inspect the information presented (Griffith et al., 2018). The main factors that can influence the listener in such situations include distractions. Peripheral route processing is critical in making fast decisions, especially if there is limited time to find a solution.
The ELM is the preferable approach for making decisions in daily life as it gives the option for critical and partial data analysis. It can be used when an answer needs to be provided first and when there is time to scrutinize the information presented. The main processing path can be used if a more critical matter requires further attention. The primary focus is to accomplish a particular goal with the uttermost proficiency, which can be attained by critical thinking and conscious thought. In events where a quick fix is needed, the peripheral avenue can be used with consideration based on what has previously happened.
Conclusion
Individual decision-making relies heavily on the cognitive well-being of the person in action. Many people face difficulties engaging their minds in critically evaluating occurrences, which affects them. Interpersonal approaches such as the Naïve Scientist and Cognitive Miser help explain the evolution of action-making and makes arguments supporting each. Other patterns include the EML and the type 1 and 2 systems. The two can be used in decision-making, although the resultant effect differs. The EML is far more critical in choice-making as it is adjustable depending on the severity of the need to come up with a solution.
References
Brosowsky, N. P., & Egner, T. (2021). Appealing to the cognitive Miser: Using demand avoidance to modulate cognitive flexibility in cued and voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(10), 1329.
Griffith, E. E., Nolder, C. J., & Petty, R. E. (2018). The elaboration likelihood model: A meta-theory for synthesizing auditor judgment and decision-making research. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(4), 169–186. Web.
Hareli, S., & Hess, U. (2019). The reverse engineering of emotions–observers of others’ emotions as naïve personality psychologists. In The social nature of emotion expression (pp. 103-118). Springer, Cham.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Brocos, P. (2021). Emotional tension as a frame for argumentation and decision-making: Vegetarian vs. omnivorous diets. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 662141.
McAlaney, J., & Benson, V. (2020). Cybersecurity as a social phenomenon. In cyber influence and cognitive threats (pp. 1-8). Academic Press.
Ogungbure, A. A. (2018). Dialectics of oppression: Fanon’s anticolonial critique of Hegelian dialectics. Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, 12(7), 216.
Schumer, M., Xu, C., Powell, D.L., Durvasula, A., Skov, L., Holland, C., Blazier, J.C., Sankararaman, S., Andolfatto, P., Rosenthal, G.G. and Przeworski, M. (2018). Natural selection interacts with recombination to shape the evolution of hybrid genomes. Science, 360(6389), pp.656-660. Web.