Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
When They All Sound the Same: Cognitive Heuristics and Walk-In Advising . Marion Schwartz Division of Undergraduate Studies Penn State University October 19, 2007 NACADA National Conference in Baltimore. Advising Under Pressure. Starting the semester, a few spaces left in critical courses:
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Division of Undergraduate Studies
Penn State University
October 19, 2007
NACADA National Conference in Baltimore
Starting the semester, a few spaces left in critical courses:
Who is going to get these courses?
Begin with a gut reaction.
Test it by using deliberative system.
We usually don’t express the result unless the conclusion has been approved by System 2 (Kahnemann).
Gigerenzer argues that no decision can reflect all possible factors.
Blink author Malcolm Gladwell cites Gigerenzer, discusses subconscious processes, like gestalt thinking, which integrate a number of variables without deliberation.
But Kahnemann argued that gut reactions lead to violations of logic, prejudice, exaggeration.
The first thing you think of, especially if you’ve seen a lot of it lately.
Assuming that the example in front of you should be treated like a typical case.
Making an adjustment from a known point
A strong emotional response to a person or situation can exaggerate judgment
If a situation is detailed enough to dramatize in the mind, it will seem more probable.
Time pressure and fear will push decider towards System 1.
Help students recognize when fear is a factor in decision making, make a space for other responses—information that can make a choice imaginable, data on expanding fields.
Make time for both student and adviser decisions—
Gigerenzer and colleagues pointed to cues to make frugal, efficient decisions.
These are not “instinctive”. Only research can determine relevant cues.
Extensive knowledge can help System 2 judgments migrate to System 1.
When subconscious processes cannot process surplus information, decisions get confused.
Institution can make available mathematical models for decision making where appropriate.
Gilovich, Thomas, Griffin, Dale, and Kahnemann, Daniel, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment Cambridge, New York, melbourne, Madrid, Capetown: Cambridge U.P. 2002
Girgerenzer, G. and Selten, R. eds. Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press, 2001
Gladwell, Michael. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little Brown, 2005
Kahnemann, Daniel, Slovic, Paul, and Tversky, Amos, eds. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge U.P., 1982
Kahnemann, Daniel and Frederick, Shane, “A Model of Heuristic Judgment,” pp. 267-295 in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. By Keith J, Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison. Cambridge, New York , Melbourne, Madrid, Capetown, Singapore, Sao Paolo: Cambridge U.P, 2005
LeBoeuf, Robyn A. and Shafir, Eldar B. “Decision Making,” pp. 243-265 in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, ed. By Keith J, Holyoak and Robert G. Morrison. Cambridge, New York , Melbourne, Madrid, Capetown, Singapore, Sao Paolo: Cambridge U.P, 2005
Politzer, Guy, and Macchi, Laura. “The Representation of the Task: The case of the Lawyer-Engineer problem in probability judgment,” pp. 119-135 in The Shape of Reason: Essays in Honor of Paolo Legrenzi, ed. by Vittorio Girotto and Phillip N. Johnson Laird, East Sussex and New York: Psychology Press, 2005