Automatic Decision-Making

How do we usually make our decisions in normal settings? How to we make the best decisions?

Since the early 1990s, scientists have realized that people behave differently in the real world than they do in the classroom or in the laboratory. This lead to a field of study called "naturalistic decision making¹ and a new field of science called "cognitive engineering."

Though this area of study is very new, its principles are being applied to computer design to redesigning training in decision-intensive professions such as medicine, aviation, and, of course, decision-making in the life and death decisions in the military. Much of this new research explains why Sun Tzu's The Art of War has been so popular for 2,500 years. 

One of the first discoveries is that the theoretical models such as Pareto analysis, paired comparisons, decision trees, and even weighing pros against cons are not used because they are impractical. In the real world, people have neither the time nor information required by these methods. Studies show that up to 96% of front-line people’s decisions are made with formal analysis at all.²

How do people act in the real world? They respond to situations with the first action they think of. It doesn’t matter how well people are trained in decision-making tools. Instead of making a decision by comparing a variety of options, people simply do whatever pops into their minds. This has been proven again and again in studies of front-line decision-making in variety of areas including aviation³, the off-shore drilling business⁴, the British Army⁵ and electronic technicians⁶.

What the research shows is that the mind works like an "if/then" statement in a computer program. If this situation then this response. What happens if the situation isn't recognized? Then we must deal with the unknown (an if ??? situation), which provokes an emotional response rather than providing the appropriate action. When a situation is recognized but the appropriate response unknown (the if this then ???), we use mental simulations⁷ to work out a appropriate course of action, but that works only if we have useful mental models of how the situation works.⁸

Even the casual reader of Sun Tzu's work would recognize a large number of if this situation then this response constructions. What we call this situation response section of his work deals with little else. Almost all of the rest of his work offers various forms of mental models for competitive situations. He even provides a connection to get from his mental models to the if/then responses we naturally prefer. The difference between an expert and a novice is simply the sophistication of their mental models.

Looking at this research and how people are taught to make decisions by rational analysis rather than from if/then choices or mental models, Gary Klein, in his book The Sources of Power, concludes:

“In one form or another, this paradigm [rational choice model] finds its way into training programs the world over. Again and again, the message is repeated careful analysis is good, incomplete analysis is bad. And again and again, the message is ignored; trainees listen dutifully, then go out of the class and act on the first option they think of.”

Studies into training courses that teach analytical decision-making⁹ found the results of that training consistently disappointing in terms of changing people's decision-making behavior.

Studies show that while both novices and experts do whatever pops into their head, experts are even more likely than novices to use this method of decision making¹⁰. In experts, this type of decision-making is called "recognition-primed" because it is driven by the experts recognition of the situation.

Recognition-primed decisions are not only more practical than the "rational choice" model but more powerful as well. Again, from Klein in Sources of Power:

“The reasons are clear. First, the rigorous, analytical approach cannot be used in most natural settings. Second, the cognition strategies that take advantage of experience are generally successful, not as a substitute for the analytical method, but as an improvement on them. The analytical methods are not the ideal; they are fallbacks for those without enough experience to know what to do.”

What research also shows is that people are better at learning when taught how to make decisions without relying on the traditional models for identifying and comparing alternative choices¹¹. They do better when taught if/then decision-making and mental models for simplifying complex situations into if/then decisions.

For this research, we discover why Sun Tzu's system has been so successful in generating changes in people's thinking. His system "primes" the recognition that making the right decisions requires. His system combines mental models for position recognition and for advancing positions with specific situational responses. While you can use his system for rational analysis, it is geared to training recognition-primed decisions. While others can implement elements of Sun Tzu's system into strategic planning systems, the Science of Strategy Institutes focuses teaching the type of strategic reflexes that the research shows is the difference between experts and novices.

To read more about what cognitive research says about the we teach Sun Tzu's methods, read about the science of gut decisions, using mental situations, and about how this training allows you to see what is invisible to untrained people.

¹ Todd & Gigerenzer Putting Naturalistic Decision Making into the Adaptive Toolbox, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 14, 353-384, 2001
² Kaemf, Thordsen, Wolf & Klein, Decision-making in the AEGIS combat information center, Office of Naval Research, Naval Command.
³ Mosier, 1991, Expert decision making strategies, Proceeding of the Sixth International Symposium  on Aviation Psychology.
⁴ Flin, Salven, & Stewart, 1996, Emergency decision making in the offshore oil and gas industry, Human Factors.
⁵ Pascual & Henderson, 1997, Evidence of naturalistic decision making in C². Naturalistic Decision Making.
⁶ Randel, Pugh, & Reed, 1996, Methods for analyzing cognitive skills for a technical task, International Journal for Human-Computer Studies.
⁷ De Groot, 1946, Thought and Choice in Chess.
⁸ Klein & Crandell, 1995, Recognition-primed decision strategies, U.S. Army Research Institute
⁹ Means, Salas, Crandall, & Jacobs, 1993, Training decision-making in the real world, Decision-Making In Action.
¹⁰ Klein, Calderwood, Thordsen, Crandel, Army Research Institute 1995
¹¹ Johnson, Driskell, and Salas, 1999, Vigilant and hypervigilant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology.