Mastering the Lizard: Ethical Behavioral Economics for Leading With Awareness

Session Submission Type: Workshop

Short Description

The goal of this workshop is to help participants build self-awareness and self-management skills by learning how to limit, filter, and influence the sources of information in one’s personal, professional, and public life. Based on a dual-processing model of cognition (intuition and reasoning) grounded in behavioral economics, individuals will learn to identify personal preconceptions, manage vulnerabilities (in multiple aspects), and overcome the most common pitfalls and biases. Participants will leave with action plans to improve decision-making skills for both long and short term planning to become better decision makers, citizens, and servant leaders.

Detailed Abstract

Background and theoretical foundation:
Behavioral Economics considers 1) decision-making processes, 2) perceptive filtering, and 3)how circumstances affect rational decision-making. There are two main routes to decision-making: heuristics and systematic, which take lesser and greater energy respectively. Framing and emotional filters determine how decision-makers see the environment and take in information. People typically act and think less rationally under risky or uncertain circumstances (Kahneman, 2003; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

Heuristics are short-cuts to decision-making and require the least effort. Heuristics come from our previous experiences, are nearly automatic in application, and are often triggered through peripheral or emotional cues. Conversely, systematic thinking is a more deliberate and effortful manner of decision-making and often uses central or logical cues to assess a situation (Chaiken, 1980; Ernst & Heesacker, 1993; Kahneman, 2003; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; White, Charles, & Nelson, 2008).

Framing and emotional filters are how information is conveyed and perceived. Filters can be positive or negative and can elicit an internal reaction which can influence and how they view circumstances and assess risk. The way an individual perceives the context of a situation or circumstance can affect how they will react (Rothman & Salovey, 1997; DeSteno, Petty, Rucker, Wegener, & Braverman, 2004).

Finally, individuals can react irrationally when faced with uncertainty emanating from one’s perceived current state. Prospect Theory refers to this current state as a reference point (Banks, Salovey, Greener, Rothman, Moyer, Beauvais, & Epel, 1995; Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

Behavioral economics uses a dual-processing model of cognition to more easily conceptualize how people make decisions. As Daniel Kahnemen notes in his ground breaking work with Amos Tversky, this dual-system model of cognition: System 1 is associated with intuition and System 2 is associated with reasoning. These two systems work in tandem to make sense of the abundance of information we are faced with daily (Kahneman, 2003).
The brain uses cues/emotions to determine if a situation is deemed familiar and dispatched to the faster system 1, where heuristics “reside” or unfamiliar thereby guiding essential decision making functions to the deliberative, slower system 2 (Kahneman, 2003). In situations where information is overly abundant, incomplete, or highly emotional, our brains struggle to make accurate decisions. In such “hot states” our assessments of risk and utility are influenced greatly (Ariely, 2008).
To complicate things further, there are many different types of information sources (considered a peripheral cue) that influence our perceptions and decision making abilities, including trustworthiness, attractiveness/celebrities, and credibility. Trustworthy sources are those that the audience feels are dependable, attractive sources are those that are deemed appealing to the recipient, and credible sources are those that the audience feels are reliable. Additional research has exposed nuances of source influence including race (White & Harkins, 1994), in-group/out-group status (Baker & Petty, 1994; Budesheim, Houston, & DePaola, 1996; Mackie, Worth, & Asuncion, 1990) and the number of sources (Clark & Wegener, 2009; Harkins & Petty, 1987). Contemporary sources of information can include (but are not limited to) fake news, biased reporting, and appeals to celebrity which can lead to surprising outcomes and influence everything from vaccination intention to political choices (as cited in Hoffman & Tan, 2014).

Through a series of experiential activities including identifying personal biases, vulnerabilities, and heuristics in a facilitated group discussion, participants will learn how they can better manage the daily onslaught of information and become more objective decision makers.

Problem/Need:
When influences take over the ability to evaluate information in a meaningful way, people begin to operate out of instinctive fear, leading to defensive reactions. This affects everyone involved with such interactions. For leaders, this is especially important in consideration of the multitude of areas they are involved in decision making including: performance appraisals, selection decisions, self-assessment, goal-setting, pay, etc. (See Judgement and Decision Making at Work, 2014).
Purpose:
This workshop will focus on self-awareness, self-management, and leverage of key leadership skills. Participants will engage in large group discussion and small group discussion to engage in self-reflection. Individuals will learn to overcome personal biases and heuristics and identify the most common pitfalls and biases (i.e. confirmation bias, attribution error, rater error, etc). Participants will leave with action plans to improve decision making skills for both long and short term planning.
Most importantly, participants will learn how to influence themselves to manage their emotions and make appropriate decisions.
Activities:
Participants will reflect on what influences them and how those influences affect decision making and the ways in which they interact and influence others and consider explanations of different types of influences and information sources. Next, participants will engage in self-reflection, examining the different cues which might be present in their environment that could be influencing their decisions, including but not limited to: contextual cues, persuasive influences, sources of information, and the implications of confirmation bias. Finally, participants will identify barriers to change and consider how to remove them.
Agenda:

Introductions and Welcome: 10 mins.
Diversity Card Game: To surface potential biases, participants in triads assign cards listing attributes to one another others based on observation. Participants will discuss whether the cards were accurate or not. Triads will report out to their observations and reflections.
Participants will set goals for themselves and share them with partners if they wish. – 15 mins
Introduction to themes, including references: (Facilitators will review theoretical/empirical bases for the workshop.) – 15 mins
Reflection: (In the large group) Based on the preceding, participants will reflect on their decision-making habits and what could work better. – 15 mins
Strategic decision making: Participants return to their triads to brainstorm ways to overcome/leverage their biases. Participants report out to the larger group and facilitators note common themes and relationships to the concepts covered. Facilitators offer corrective and constructive feedback.

Closing remarks: The large group will reflect on take-aways and commit to action plans.
Learning Outcomes

Identify personal biases and develop an action plan for how to address.
Identify sources of influence that affect information perception.
Practice cultivating awareness of the strengths in oneself and others.

Sub Unit

• Leadership Development

Presenters

• Elizabeth Schwab, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

• Julie E Benesh, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology