Science for Society: Smart Choices, Confidence, and Technology: The Science of Decision Making

What do we know about decision making? What does psychological research say about efforts to influence how people make decisions? And how can people become more efficient about making decisions collectively? 

Three researchers in decision-making science joined APS to present findings and projects that shed light on these questions in this Science for Society webinar.  

Ben Newell, professor of cognitive psychology at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney and director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response, began the presentation by describing the introspective process involved in making decisions.  

“Do I regret what I did? Do I think it turned out for the better? We can have these kinds of introspective processes to try and work out whether or not we thought a decision was good or bad,” Newell said.  

But for psychological science to move beyond introspective thinking about decision making, Newell said it’s crucial to set benchmarks that help us compare our decisions. He described normative benchmarks such as how coherent decisions are with each other as well as how well they correspond with the external world.  

Aba Szollosi, a lecturer at the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response, described research on nudging, which he defined as simple and low-cost techniques that are intended to facilitate positive behavior without restricting options. Common examples include placing healthy food at eye level in a cafeteria to promote beneficial eating choices and providing information on neighbors’ energy use to encourage households to reduce their own energy consumption.  

“From these, we can see why nudging is so popular,” Szollosi said. “It’s because it’s so low cost, and it seems to have huge effects on people’s behavior.” 

However, Szollosi pointed out some of the issues with nudging, including the lack of a unifying theory on the practice. For nudging to be effective, it also requires the nudger and nudgee to be aligned in how they think about a specific problem—that ice cream is unhealthy and should be eaten in moderation, for example.  

“Once we identify the points of disagreement between us and them, we can develop nudges in a more targeted and more specific way,” he said.  

To round out the presentation, Niccolo Pescetelli, from the London Interdisciplinary School, shared his research and projects on collective decision making.  

“In the real world, people’s judgements are rarely independent,” he said. “We influence each other.”  

Pescetelli described his work with a project called People Supported Intelligence,  a platform designed to facilitate collective decision making in an efficient manner. In one example, a group of 1,000 people were able to agree on a decision in 45 minutes by participating in a series of breakout groups where they discuss and rank possible solutions.  

Though Pescetelli demonstrated how the platform presents tremendous opportunities for collective decision making, he also acknowledged the limitations of technology when it comes to providing equal opportunities to contribute. He used the example of technologies that filter information through personalized algorithms, limiting the variability of the content that an individual receives.  

“It actually increases differences between cultural groups,” he said.