conclusion for problem solving and decision making

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Problem Solving and Decision Making: Key Differences & Applications

Explore the nuances of solving complex problems and making intricate decisions in this insightful blog. Gain a deeper understanding of the key distinctions between them. In this blog, explore Problem Solving and Decision Making, their key differences and how to apply these abilities in the workplace. Let's dive in!

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Introduction to Management
• Introduction to Managing People
• Senior Management Training

Have you ever faced the trouble of deciding what is right or wrong? In our daily lives, we often come across situations that require us to confront challenges and make choices. This is why two critical cognitive processes are involved in addressing these situations: Problem Solving and Decision Making. While the terms are frequently used interchangeably, they represent distinct mental activities with specific objectives. Problem Solving involves identifying and resolving issues using critical thinking and creativity. On the other hand, Decision Making entails choosing the best course of action among alternatives and considering risks and rewards. In this blog, we will Learn the differences between Problem Solving and Decision Making, how to apply these abilities at work, and some advice on how to improve them.

Table of Contents 

1) What do you understand by Decision Making? 

2) Understanding Problem Solving 

3) What are the differences between Problem Solving and Decision Making?

4) Tips on how to improve Problem-solving and Decision-making skills

5) How can you integrate Decision Making and Problem Solving? 

6) Conclusion 

What do you understand by Decision Making? 

It is a hard choice when we are faced with the question to make important decisions, in organisational setting and personal life as well. Nevertheless, it is not a reason to be afraid, but rather, to master these tasks through comprehensive knowledge of their consequences. First, we should define Decision Making before going on to the difference between Decision Making and Problem Solving.

It is an intellectual process that has a direct impact on our everyday and work-life matters. It is the process of analysing different options to find the best one in line with various factors and the one that is going to meet the objectives.

Effective Decision Making combines Critical Thinking, analysis, and judgment, and it can be the determinant of outcome and consequences. Let's uncover the important steps to Decision -making and some real-life examples:

1) Evaluation of alternatives: The first step in Decision Making requires the identification of problems and conceptualisation of possible alternatives that can help to deal with the given situation or problem.

2) Rationality and objectivity: The correct Decision Making process consists of a detailed analysis of all the data that is accessible, assessing the pros and cons of each scenario, and selecting a logical and beneficial option. 

3) Heuristics and biases: Sometimes, it is possible that you may have mental heuristics to be quick in the decision process. However, biases may be introduced by shortcuts and suboptimal choices could become inevitable for you.

4) Decision Making under uncertainty: Some times, you have to make important decisions based on the information that is not complete or with determined assumptions. The risk is directly connected and making risk assessment is considered to be the answer to this question. You must enhance on your flexibility to address the unpredictable.

5) Group Decision Making: In collaborative contexts, people may arrive at a decision together having discussed, brainstormed and found a common consensus with one another. Such a method taps into the different perceptions and skills.

6) Strategic Decision Making: In organisations, Strategic Decision Making requires being concerned with the possible long-term implications, aligning decisions with organisational goals, and trying to anticipate potential impacts on stakeholders.  

7) Ethical considerations:  This involves assessing the moral implications of choices, decisions, and actions. It revolves around making the right and just choices, guided by one's ethical values and principles.

8) Learning from outcomes: As an effective decision-maker, one should have the audacity to learn from both successful and unsuccessful outcomes because learning from these will only enhance future Decision Making processes. 

Here are some real-life examples that may require you to make some justified decisions: 

a) Choosing between two job offers based on salary, benefits, and career prospects. 

b) Deciding which college or university to attend, considering factors like location, courses offered, and campus culture. 

c) Selecting an investment option after analysing risk, return potential, and financial goals. 

d) Determining the best marketing strategy for a new product launch, considering target audience, budget, and competition. 

e) Making a medical treatment choice for a patient after weighing the benefits, risks, and patient preferences.   

Understanding Problem Solving  

You're now aware of how you can make effective Decision Making. Let us now learn how to effectively carry out Problem Solving tasks in our daily life. Problem Solving is a fundamental cognitive process that entails identifying challenges, finding solutions, and accompliching the set goals. 

It is a logical process aimed at knowing the problem, looking for possible solutions, and choosing the most efficient solution. This helps you to navigate complexities and arrive at successful conclusions. Let us now look at some tips that can help you in Problem Solving effectively:  

1) Problem identification: As a first step towards Problem Solving, effectively carry out tasks. Also, recognise and define the issue or challenge that needs to be addressed.  

2) Data gathering: Gathering relevant information and data related to the problem is essential for understanding its root causes and implications. This helps you become a good problem solver. 

3) Analysis and diagnosis: Analyse the gathered information to identify the underlying causes of the problem. This helps you in devising targeted solutions. 

4) Solution generation: Brainstorming and generating multiple potential solutions is crucial for you when you are exploring diverse approaches to resolve the problem. 

5) Evaluation of alternatives: Carefully evaluate the pros and cons of each solution. This helps you in selecting the most feasible and effective one. 

6) Implementation: After choosing a solution, you have to put the chosen solution into action. This requires planning, coordination, and effective execution. 

7) Creative thinking: Sometimes adopting an open-minded view towards finding a solution to the challenging situations will encourage you to be creative.

8) Root cause analysis: Finding and tackling the cause behind the problem in itself can make a change that lasts and you will get a much better, sustainable solution to your problem.

Let us now see some real-life examples where you need to apply your Problem Solving skills: 

a) Resolving a technical issue with a computer by identifying and troubleshooting the actual cause of the problem. 

b) Finding an alternative transportation route when faced with unexpected road closures. 

c) Addressing a communication breakdown within a team by facilitating open discussions and conflict resolution. 

d) Solving a math problem by applying various Problem Solving Techniques and mathematical principles. 

e)  Fixing a malfunctioning appliance by diagnosing the issue and performing necessary repairs. 

Learn to be more Mindful when you are applying your Problem Solving skills with our Conflict Management Training .  

What are the differences between Problem Solving and Decision Making?

Let us now have a look how Problem Solving and Decision Making skills are different from each other:

1) Definition  

Problem Solving is a step-by-step approach that one uses to identify, analyse, and finally come up with the solution to the issues or challenges they face. It seeks to find the origin of a problem, generate possible ideas or solutions, and choose the best alternative to be implemented. In most researches and practices, the primary aim of Problem Solving is reducing or overcoming the negative impacts of the problem.

On the other hand, the Decision Making process gives the choice, which can be taken from different alternatives. Every process of Decision Making produces a choice like taking action, a strategy, or making a resolution. There is not necessarily a problem but it is applicable in any situation which requires making a choice.

2) Objective 

Problem Solving is an effort to overcome a given obstacle or challenge. Its basic aim is to produce a solution that would change the current situation from less desirable to more desirable. On the other hand, Decision Making aims at selecting the best possible choice from among several alternatives. It could be proactive, such as deciding on an expansion strategy for the market, or it could be reactive, such as deciding on a course of action in response to the moves of a competitor.

3) Nature 

In the Problem Solving process, a problem often arises as a response to a discrepancy between what was expected and what is actually experienced, necessitating a solution. This process is typically reactive. On the other hand, Decision Making can be both proactive and reactive. Proactive Decision Making involves making choices based on anticipation of future events, while reactive Decision Making involves selecting courses of action in response to an immediate situation or problem.

4) Process 

The process of Problem Solving usually starts with understanding and diagnosing the problem. This is followed by brainstorming various solutions and analysing the suitability of each before finally implementing the most fitting one.

On the other hand, the Decision Making process typically begins with identifying a need, often through gathering information. This leads to the search for alternatives and compiling a list of these options. The alternatives are then weighed against criteria such as risks, benefits, and implications before making a choice.

5) Tools and techniques 

In Problem Solving, commonly used tools include root cause analysis, brainstorming, SWOT analysis, and fishbone diagrams (Ishikawa). These tools help in pinpointing the origin of a problem and exploring all possible solutions.

On the other hand, Decision Making often utilises techniques such as decision trees, cost-benefit analysis, pros and cons lists, and grid analysis. These methods assist in evaluating the implications of each available choice.

6) Skills required 

The major skills required in Problem Solving include critical thinking, analytical skills, creativity, and resilience. It is crucial to have the ability to persevere and not be overwhelmed by challenges.

However, Decision Making requires analytical skills, risk assessment, intuition, and foresight. The essential capability here is to be accountable for decisions, which involves predicting the outcomes of every choice

7) Duration and finality  

Problem Solving is time-consuming. It requires a deep dive into understanding the problem before moving on to solutions. The process concludes once a solution is implemented, and the problem is resolved. 

On the other hand, Decision Making can be swift (like everyday decisions) or prolonged (strategic decisions) depending on the complexity of the problems. Once a decision is made, the next step is to implement it, but decisions can sometimes be revisited based on outcomes or changing scenarios. 

Gain a deeper understanding of yourself to take more effective Decision Making with our Decision Making Course .

Tips on how to improve Problem Solving and Decision Making skills

Decision Making and Problem Solving are two most important skills that every individual must possess to excel in their career and in their personal life. There are multiple ways which can be used to improve these skills. Let’s have a look at some of these tips to improve these skills:

Developing skills related to Decision Making and Problem Solving

You can improve your Decision-making and Problem-solving skills by developing other skills such as analytical thinking, creativity and critical thinking. These allied skills will help you boost your analytical thinking skills, will help you think creatively and outside the box. Moreover, honing these skills will help you understand the problems deeply and analyse them without getting partial with your decisions.

Effective communication

Communication is the one of the major keys to success. Effective communication helps in solving problems, miscommunications and helps you understand different perspectives to the same problem. By practicing effective communication, you can convey an information or tasks seamlessly to you team members or colleagues. It helps you understand the root cause of any problem and helps you take an informed decision.

Think about past decisions

It may seem unrelated to you in this context, however, thinking back on your decisions that you made previously can help you not repeat the mistakes, or save you the time that you previously took to make a small decision. Reflecting on past decisions helpin analysing the current problems impartially and help you learn more about your own methods to decide or solve a problem.

Research your industry

Before you make any important decision, or solve out a problem, you need to know about your industry in detail. Since not all situations are same, neither are the industries. Every industry, company or business have their own set of goals, requirements, ideologies, and policies. Whenever you are a part of that specific industry, you should keep in mind, their framework. If you are going beyond their framework or their principles, while solving a problem, there may not be any significant impact taken by your decisions.

Keep yourself updated

It is necessary that you keep yourself updated. As you know that our world is going through many technological advancements. Hence you need to know and update yourself so that you can incorporate all these inventions and discoveries in your industry.

Crack Your Interview with Management Interview Questions and Answers .

How can you integrate Decision Making and Problem Solving? 

Even though Decision Making and Problem-solving have their differences, there are still instances where you need to integrate these two special skills so that you can carry out any challenging tasks or situations, whether it be in the workplace or in your personal life. The following tips will help you show how you can take effective decisions and simultaneously solve problems: 

1) Foster a systematic approach: You can start by adopting a systematic approach to Problem Solving. It involves defining the issue, gathering relevant information, analysing data, generating potential solutions, and evaluating alternatives. Then, you can implement your structured Problem Solving process, which provides a solid foundation for your informed Decision Making. 

2) Identify decision points: You can recognise the key decision points within the Problem-solving process. Then you have to determine which factors require choices and weigh the consequences of each decision on the overall Problem Solving outcome.  

3) Incorporate critical thinking: You can emphasise your critical thinking throughout both Problem Solving and Decision Making. Engage in objective analysis so that you can consider multiple perspectives and challenge assumptions to arrive at well-rounded solutions and decisions.  

4) Utilise data-driven decisions: Ensure that the decisions made during the Problem Solving process are backed by relevant data and evidence. Your data-driven Decision-making minimises biases and increases the chances of arriving at the most suitable solutions. 

Gain a deeper understanding of yourself to take more effective Decision-mking with our Personal & Organisational Development Training . 

Conclusion 

If you integrate both Problem Solving and Decision Making, you can have a more potent approach toward various challenges or tasks. This will help you in making well-informed choices in those circumstances. Moreover, this synergy will empower you to have a Problem -solving mindset to navigate complexities with clarity and achieve effective outcomes. 

Enhance your remote leadership skills with our Managing Remote Teams Course .

Frequently Asked Questions

Problem Solving is both a skill and a competency. It involves the ability to analyse situations, identify issues, generate solutions, and implement them effectively. Developing this capability enhances decision-making, creativity, and adaptability in various personal and professional contexts.

The five steps for Problem Solving and decision-making are: 

1) Define the problem

2) Identify possible solutions 

3) Evaluate alternatives

4) Make a decision 

5) Implement and monitor the chosen solution.

The Knowledge Academy’s Knowledge Pass , a prepaid voucher, adds another layer of flexibility, allowing course bookings over a 12-month period. Join us on a journey where education knows no bounds.

The Knowledge Academy offers various Management Courses , including the Management Training for New Managers Course, Problem Solving Course and Introduction to Management Course. These courses cater to different skill levels, providing comprehensive insights into 10 Ways for Developing Leadership Skills .

Our Business Skills Blogs cover a range of topics related to Decision Making, offering valuable resources, best practices, and industry insights. Whether you are a beginner or looking to advance your Management skills, The Knowledge Academy's diverse courses and informative blogs have got you covered.

The Knowledge Academy takes global learning to new heights, offering over 30,000 online courses across 490+ locations in 220 countries. This expansive reach ensures accessibility and convenience for learners worldwide.  

Alongside our diverse Online Course Catalogue , encompassing 17 major categories, we go the extra mile by providing a plethora of free educational Online Resources like News updates, blogs, videos, webinars, and interview questions. Tailoring learning experiences further, professionals can maximise value with customisable Course Bundles of TKA .  

Upcoming Business Skills Resources Batches & Dates

Fri 27th Sep 2024

Fri 29th Nov 2024

Fri 14th Feb 2025

Fri 16th May 2025

Fri 25th Jul 2025

Fri 29th Aug 2025

Fri 10th Oct 2025

Fri 28th Nov 2025

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest summer sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• ISO 9001 Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

Decision Making vs. Problem Solving

What's the difference.

Decision making and problem solving are two closely related concepts that are essential in both personal and professional settings. While decision making refers to the process of selecting the best course of action among various alternatives, problem solving involves identifying and resolving issues or obstacles that hinder progress towards a desired outcome. Decision making often involves evaluating different options based on their potential outcomes and consequences, while problem solving requires analyzing the root causes of a problem and developing effective strategies to overcome it. Both skills require critical thinking, creativity, and the ability to weigh pros and cons. Ultimately, decision making and problem solving are interconnected and complementary processes that enable individuals to navigate complex situations and achieve desired goals.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Decision making and problem solving are two essential cognitive processes that individuals and organizations engage in to navigate through various challenges and achieve desired outcomes. While they are distinct processes, decision making and problem solving share several attributes and are often interconnected. In this article, we will explore the similarities and differences between decision making and problem solving, highlighting their key attributes and how they contribute to effective problem-solving and decision-making processes.

Definition and Purpose

Decision making involves selecting a course of action from multiple alternatives based on available information, preferences, and goals. It is a cognitive process that individuals use to make choices and reach conclusions. On the other hand, problem solving refers to the process of finding solutions to specific issues or challenges. It involves identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems to achieve desired outcomes.

Both decision making and problem solving share the purpose of achieving a desired outcome or resolving a particular situation. They require individuals to think critically, evaluate options, and consider potential consequences. While decision making focuses on choosing the best course of action, problem solving emphasizes finding effective solutions to specific problems or challenges.

Attributes of Decision Making

Decision making involves several key attributes that contribute to its effectiveness:

• Rationality: Decision making is often based on rational thinking, where individuals evaluate available information, weigh pros and cons, and make logical choices.
• Subjectivity: Decision making is influenced by personal preferences, values, and biases. Individuals may prioritize certain factors or options based on their subjective judgment.
• Uncertainty: Many decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty, where individuals lack complete information or face unpredictable outcomes. Decision makers must assess risks and make informed judgments.
• Time Constraints: Decision making often occurs within time constraints, requiring individuals to make choices efficiently and effectively.
• Trade-offs: Decision making involves considering trade-offs between different options, as individuals must prioritize certain factors or outcomes over others.

Attributes of Problem Solving

Problem solving also encompasses several key attributes that contribute to its effectiveness:

• Analytical Thinking: Problem solving requires individuals to analyze and break down complex problems into smaller components, facilitating a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.
• Creativity: Effective problem solving often involves thinking outside the box and generating innovative solutions. It requires individuals to explore alternative perspectives and consider unconventional approaches.
• Collaboration: Problem solving can benefit from collaboration and teamwork, as diverse perspectives and expertise can contribute to more comprehensive and effective solutions.
• Iterative Process: Problem solving is often an iterative process, where individuals continuously evaluate and refine their solutions based on feedback and new information.
• Implementation: Problem solving is not complete without implementing the chosen solution. Individuals must take action and monitor the outcomes to ensure the problem is effectively resolved.

Interconnection and Overlap

While decision making and problem solving are distinct processes, they are interconnected and often overlap. Decision making is frequently a part of the problem-solving process, as individuals must make choices and select the most appropriate solution to address a specific problem. Similarly, problem solving is inherent in decision making, as individuals must identify and analyze problems or challenges before making informed choices.

Moreover, both decision making and problem solving require critical thinking skills, the ability to evaluate information, and the consideration of potential consequences. They both involve a systematic approach to gather and analyze relevant data, explore alternatives, and assess the potential risks and benefits of different options.

Decision making and problem solving are fundamental cognitive processes that individuals and organizations engage in to navigate through challenges and achieve desired outcomes. While decision making focuses on selecting the best course of action, problem solving emphasizes finding effective solutions to specific problems or challenges. Both processes share attributes such as rationality, subjectivity, uncertainty, time constraints, and trade-offs (in decision making), as well as analytical thinking, creativity, collaboration, iterative process, and implementation (in problem solving).

Understanding the similarities and differences between decision making and problem solving can enhance our ability to approach complex situations effectively. By leveraging the attributes of both processes, individuals and organizations can make informed choices, address challenges, and achieve desired outcomes.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

3.4 Problem Solving and Decision Making

Learning objectives.

• Learn to understand the problem.
• Learn to combine creative thinking and critical thinking to solve problems.
• Practice problem solving in a group.

Much of your college and professional life will be spent solving problems; some will be complex, such as deciding on a career, and require time and effort to come up with a solution. Others will be small, such as deciding what to eat for lunch, and will allow you to make a quick decision based entirely on your own experience. But, in either case, when coming up with the solution and deciding what to do, follow the same basic steps.

• Define the problem. Use your analytical skills. What is the real issue? Why is it a problem? What are the root causes? What kinds of outcomes or actions do you expect to generate to solve the problem? What are some of the key characteristics that will make a good choice: Timing? Resources? Availability of tools and materials? For more complex problems, it helps to actually write out the problem and the answers to these questions. Can you clarify your understanding of the problem by using metaphors to illustrate the issue?
• Narrow the problem. Many problems are made up of a series of smaller problems, each requiring its own solution. Can you break the problem into different facets? What aspects of the current issue are “noise” that should not be considered in the problem solution? (Use critical thinking to separate facts from opinion in this step.)
• Generate possible solutions. List all your options. Use your creative thinking skills in this phase. Did you come up with the second “right” answer, and the third or the fourth? Can any of these answers be combined into a stronger solution? What past or existing solutions can be adapted or combined to solve this problem?

Group Think: Effective Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a process of generating ideas for solutions in a group. This method is very effective because ideas from one person will trigger additional ideas from another. The following guidelines make for an effective brainstorming session:

• Decide who should moderate the session. That person may participate, but his main role is to keep the discussion flowing.
• Define the problem to be discussed and the time you will allow to consider it.
• Write all ideas down on a board or flip chart for all participants to see.
• Encourage everyone to speak.
• Do not allow criticism of ideas. All ideas are good during a brainstorm. Suspend disbelief until after the session. Remember a wildly impossible idea may trigger a creative and feasible solution to a problem.
• Choose the best solution. Use your critical thinking skills to select the most likely choices. List the pros and cons for each of your selections. How do these lists compare with the requirements you identified when you defined the problem? If you still can’t decide between options, you may want to seek further input from your brainstorming team.

Decisions, Decisions

You will be called on to make many decisions in your life. Some will be personal, like what to major in, or whether or not to get married. Other times you will be making decisions on behalf of others at work or for a volunteer organization. Occasionally you will be asked for your opinion or experience for decisions others are making. To be effective in all of these circumstances, it is helpful to understand some principles about decision making.

First, define who is responsible for solving the problem or making the decision. In an organization, this may be someone above or below you on the organization chart but is usually the person who will be responsible for implementing the solution. Deciding on an academic major should be your decision, because you will have to follow the course of study. Deciding on the boundaries of a sales territory would most likely be the sales manager who supervises the territories, because he or she will be responsible for producing the results with the combined territories. Once you define who is responsible for making the decision, everyone else will fall into one of two roles: giving input, or in rare cases, approving the decision.

Understanding the role of input is very important for good decisions. Input is sought or given due to experience or expertise, but it is up to the decision maker to weigh the input and decide whether and how to use it. Input should be fact based, or if offering an opinion, it should be clearly stated as such. Finally, once input is given, the person giving the input must support the other’s decision, whether or not the input is actually used.

Consider a team working on a project for a science course. The team assigns you the responsibility of analyzing and presenting a large set of complex data. Others on the team will set up the experiment to demonstrate the hypothesis, prepare the class presentation, and write the paper summarizing the results. As you face the data, you go to the team to seek input about the level of detail on the data you should consider for your analysis. The person doing the experiment setup thinks you should be very detailed, because then it will be easy to compare experiment results with the data. However, the person preparing the class presentation wants only high-level data to be considered because that will make for a clearer presentation. If there is not a clear understanding of the decision-making process, each of you may think the decision is yours to make because it influences the output of your work; there will be conflict and frustration on the team. If the decision maker is clearly defined upfront, however, and the input is thoughtfully given and considered, a good decision can be made (perhaps a creative compromise?) and the team can get behind the decision and work together to complete the project.

Finally, there is the approval role in decisions. This is very common in business decisions but often occurs in college work as well (the professor needs to approve the theme of the team project, for example). Approval decisions are usually based on availability of resources, legality, history, or policy.

Key Takeaways

• Effective problem solving involves critical and creative thinking.

The four steps to effective problem solving are the following:

• Define the problem
• Narrow the problem
• Generate solutions
• Choose the solution
• Brainstorming is a good method for generating creative solutions.
• Understanding the difference between the roles of deciding and providing input makes for better decisions.

Checkpoint Exercises

Gather a group of three or four friends and conduct three short brainstorming sessions (ten minutes each) to generate ideas for alternate uses for peanut butter, paper clips, and pen caps. Compare the results of the group with your own ideas. Be sure to follow the brainstorming guidelines. Did you generate more ideas in the group? Did the quality of the ideas improve? Were the group ideas more innovative? Which was more fun? Write your conclusions here.

__________________________________________________________________

Using the steps outlined earlier for problem solving, write a plan for the following problem: You are in your second year of studies in computer animation at Jefferson Community College. You and your wife both work, and you would like to start a family in the next year or two. You want to become a video game designer and can benefit from more advanced work in programming. Should you go on to complete a four-year degree?

Define the problem: What is the core issue? What are the related issues? Are there any requirements to a successful solution? Can you come up with a metaphor to describe the issue?

Narrow the problem: Can you break down the problem into smaller manageable pieces? What would they be?

Generate solutions: What are at least two “right” answers to each of the problem pieces?

Choose the right approach: What do you already know about each solution? What do you still need to know? How can you get the information you need? Make a list of pros and cons for each solution.

College Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

SLO campus power outage. Classes starting at 8:45 AM and earlier cancelled today. Next update by 8:15am

• Cuesta College Home
• Current Students
• Student Success Centers

Study Guides

• Critical Thinking

Decision-making and Problem-solving

Appreciate the complexities involved in decision-making & problem solving.

Develop evidence to support views

Analyze situations carefully

Discuss subjects in an organized way

Predict the consequences of actions

Weigh alternatives

Generate and organize ideas

Form and apply concepts

Design systematic plans of action

A 5-Step Problem-Solving Strategy

Specify the problem – a first step to solving a problem is to identify it as specifically as possible.  It involves evaluating the present state and determining how it differs from the goal state.

Analyze the problem – analyzing the problem involves learning as much as you can about it.  It may be necessary to look beyond the obvious, surface situation, to stretch your imagination and reach for more creative options.

seek other perspectives

be flexible in your analysis

consider various strands of impact

brainstorm about all possibilities and implications

research problems for which you lack complete information. Get help.

Formulate possible solutions – identify a wide range of possible solutions.

try to think of all possible solutions

be creative

consider similar problems and how you have solved them

Evaluate possible solutions – weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each solution.  Think through each solution and consider how, when, and where you could accomplish each.  Consider both immediate and long-term results.  Mapping your solutions can be helpful at this stage.

Choose a solution – consider 3 factors:

compatibility with your priorities

amount of risk

practicality

Keys to Problem Solving

Think aloud – problem solving is a cognitive, mental process.  Thinking aloud or talking yourself through the steps of problem solving is useful.  Hearing yourself think can facilitate the process.

Allow time for ideas to "gel" or consolidate.  If time permits, give yourself time for solutions to develop.  Distance from a problem can allow you to clear your mind and get a new perspective.

Talk about the problem – describing the problem to someone else and talking about it can often make a problem become more clear and defined so that a new solution will surface.

Decision Making Strategies

Decision making is a process of identifying and evaluating choices.  We make numerous decisions every day and our decisions may range from routine, every-day types of decisions to those decisions which will have far reaching impacts.  The types of decisions we make are routine, impulsive, and reasoned.  Deciding what to eat for breakfast is a routine decision; deciding to do or buy something at the last minute is considered an impulsive decision; and choosing your college major is, hopefully, a reasoned decision.  College coursework often requires you to make the latter, or reasoned decisions.

Decision making has much in common with problem solving.  In problem solving you identify and evaluate solution paths; in decision making you make a similar discovery and evaluation of alternatives.  The crux of decision making, then, is the careful identification and evaluation of alternatives.  As you weigh alternatives, use the following suggestions:

Consider the outcome each is likely to produce, in both the short term and the long term.

Compare alternatives based on how easily you can accomplish each.

Evaluate possible negative side effects each may produce.

Consider the risk involved in each.

Be creative, original; don't eliminate alternatives because you have not heard or used them before.

An important part of decision making is to predict both short-term and long-term outcomes for each alternative.  You may find that while an alternative seems most desirable at the present, it may pose problems or complications over a longer time period.

• Uses of Critical Thinking
• Critically Evaluating the Logic and Validity of Information
• Recognizing Propaganda Techniques and Errors of Faulty Logic
• Developing the Ability to Analyze Historical and Contemporary Information
• Recognize and Value Various Viewpoints
• Appreciating the Complexities Involved in Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Being a Responsible Critical Thinker & Collaborating with Others
• Suggestions
• Read the Textbook
• When to Take Notes
• 10 Steps to Tests
• Studying for Exams
• Test-Taking Errors
• Test Anxiety
• Objective Tests
• Essay Tests
• The Reading Process
• Levels of Comprehension
• Strengthen Your Reading Comprehension
• Reading Rate
• How to Read a Textbook
• Organizational Patterns of a Paragraph
• Topics, Main Ideas, and Support
• Inferences and Conclusions
• Interpreting What You Read
• Concentrating and Remembering
• Converting Words into Pictures
• Spelling and the Dictionary
• Eight Essential Spelling Rules
• Exceptions to the Rules
• Motivation and Goal Setting
• Effective Studying
• Time Management
• Listening and Note-Taking
• Memory and Learning Styles
• Textbook Reading Strategies
• Memory Tips
• Test-Taking Strategies
• The First Step
• Study System
• Maximize Comprehension
• Different Reading Modes
• Paragraph Patterns
• An Effective Strategy
• Finding the Main Idea
• Read a Medical Text
• Read in the Sciences
• Read University Level
• Textbook Study Strategies
• The Origin of Words
• Using a Dictionary
• Interpreting a Dictionary Entry
• Structure Analysis
• Common Roots
• Word Relationships
• Using Word Relationships
• Context Clues
• The Importance of Reading
• Vocabulary Analogies
• Guide to Talking with Instructors
• Writing Help

Dual Enrollment Program Leads CA in Student Participation

Miossi art gallery presents: "the outsiders from the other side", cuesta college's fall semester begins aug. 12.

Short term classes available now.

Register Today!

• INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
• Problem Solving and Decision Making

Towards Solving the Problem

Search SkillsYouNeed:

Interpersonal Skills:

• A - Z List of Interpersonal Skills
• Interpersonal Skills Self-Assessment
• Communication Skills
• Emotional Intelligence
• Conflict Resolution and Mediation Skills
• Customer Service Skills
• Team-Working, Groups and Meetings
• Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
• Effective Decision Making
• Decision-Making Framework
• Introduction to Problem Solving
• Identifying and Structuring Problems
• Investigating Ideas and Solutions
• Implementing a Solution and Feedback
• Creative Problem-Solving
• Social Problem-Solving
• Negotiation and Persuasion Skills
• Personal and Romantic Relationship Skills

Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and start improving your life in just 5 minutes a day.

You'll get our 5 free 'One Minute Life Skills' and our weekly newsletter.

We'll never share your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This pages continues working through the stages of problem solving as laid out in: Problem Solving - An Introduction .

This page concludes our problem solving series with a brief overview of the final stages of the problem solving framework.

Stage Four: Making a Decision

Once a number of possible solutions have been arrived at, they should be taken forward through the decision making process.

Decision Making is a an important skill in itself and you may want to read our Decision Making articles for more information.

For example, information on each suggestion needs to be sought, the risks assessed, each option evaluated through a pros and cons analysis and, finally, a decision made on the best possible option.

Stage Five: Implementation

Making a decision and taking a decision are two different things.

Implementation Involves:

• Being committed to a solution.
• Accepting responsibility for the decision.
• Identifying who will implement the solution.
• Resolving to carry out the chosen solution.
• Exploring the best possible means of implementing the solution.

Stage Six: Feedback

The only way for an individual or group to improve their problem solving, is to look at how they have solved problems in the past. To do this, feedback is needed and, therefore, it is important to keep a record of problem solving, the solutions arrived at and the outcomes. Ways of obtaining feedback include:

• Questionnaires
• Follow-up phone calls
• Asking others who may have been affected by your decisions.

It is important to encourage people to be honest when seeking feedback, regardless whether it is positive or negative.

Conclusions to Problem Solving

Problem solving involves seeking to achieve goals and overcoming barriers. The stages of problem solving include identification of the problem, structuring the problem through the use of some forms of representation, and looking for possible solutions often through techniques of divergent thinking. Once possible solutions have been arrived at, one of them will be chosen through the decision making process.

The final stages of problem solving involve implementing your solution and seeking feedback as to the outcome, feedback can be recorded for help with future problem solving scenarios.

Continue to: Social Problem Solving Strategic Thinking

See also: Project Management What is Communication? Improving Communication

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Make Great Decisions, Quickly

• Martin G. Moore

It’s a skill that will set you apart.

As a new leader, learning to make good decisions without hesitation and procrastination is a capability that can set you apart from your peers. While others vacillate on tricky choices, your team could be hitting deadlines and producing the type of results that deliver true value. That’s something that will get you — and them — noticed. Here are a few of a great decision:

• Great decisions are shaped by consideration of many different viewpoints. This doesn’t mean you should seek out everyone’s opinion. The right people with the relevant expertise need to clearly articulate their views to help you broaden your perspective and make the best choice.
• Great decisions are made as close as possible to the action. Remember that the most powerful people at your company are rarely on the ground doing the hands-on work. Seek input and guidance from team members who are closest to the action.
• Great decisions address the root cause, not just the symptoms. Although you may need to urgently address the symptoms, once this is done you should always develop a plan to fix the root cause, or else the problem is likely to repeat itself.
• Great decisions balance short-term and long-term value. Finding the right balance between short-term and long-term risks and considerations is key to unlocking true value.
• Great decisions are timely. If you consider all of the elements listed above, then it’s simply a matter of addressing each one with a heightened sense of urgency.

Like many young leaders, early in my career, I thought a great decision was one that attracted widespread approval. When my colleagues smiled and nodded their collective heads, it reinforced (in my mind, at least) that I was an excellent decision maker.

• MM Martin G. Moore is the founder of Your CEO Mentor and author of No Bullsh!t Leadership and host of the No Bullsh!t Leadership podcast. His purpose is to improve the quality of leaders globally through practical, real world leadership content. For more information, please visit, www.martingmoore.com.

Partner Center

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7 Module 7: Thinking, Reasoning, and Problem-Solving

This module is about how a solid working knowledge of psychological principles can help you to think more effectively, so you can succeed in school and life. You might be inclined to believe that—because you have been thinking for as long as you can remember, because you are able to figure out the solution to many problems, because you feel capable of using logic to argue a point, because you can evaluate whether the things you read and hear make sense—you do not need any special training in thinking. But this, of course, is one of the key barriers to helping people think better. If you do not believe that there is anything wrong, why try to fix it?

The human brain is indeed a remarkable thinking machine, capable of amazing, complex, creative, logical thoughts. Why, then, are we telling you that you need to learn how to think? Mainly because one major lesson from cognitive psychology is that these capabilities of the human brain are relatively infrequently realized. Many psychologists believe that people are essentially “cognitive misers.” It is not that we are lazy, but that we have a tendency to expend the least amount of mental effort necessary. Although you may not realize it, it actually takes a great deal of energy to think. Careful, deliberative reasoning and critical thinking are very difficult. Because we seem to be successful without going to the trouble of using these skills well, it feels unnecessary to develop them. As you shall see, however, there are many pitfalls in the cognitive processes described in this module. When people do not devote extra effort to learning and improving reasoning, problem solving, and critical thinking skills, they make many errors.

As is true for memory, if you develop the cognitive skills presented in this module, you will be more successful in school. It is important that you realize, however, that these skills will help you far beyond school, even more so than a good memory will. Although it is somewhat useful to have a good memory, ten years from now no potential employer will care how many questions you got right on multiple choice exams during college. All of them will, however, recognize whether you are a logical, analytical, critical thinker. With these thinking skills, you will be an effective, persuasive communicator and an excellent problem solver.

The module begins by describing different kinds of thought and knowledge, especially conceptual knowledge and critical thinking. An understanding of these differences will be valuable as you progress through school and encounter different assignments that require you to tap into different kinds of knowledge. The second section covers deductive and inductive reasoning, which are processes we use to construct and evaluate strong arguments. They are essential skills to have whenever you are trying to persuade someone (including yourself) of some point, or to respond to someone’s efforts to persuade you. The module ends with a section about problem solving. A solid understanding of the key processes involved in problem solving will help you to handle many daily challenges.

7.1. Different kinds of thought

7.2. Reasoning and Judgment

7.3. Problem Solving

READING WITH PURPOSE

Remember and understand.

By reading and studying Module 7, you should be able to remember and describe:

• Concepts and inferences (7.1)
• Procedural knowledge (7.1)
• Metacognition (7.1)
• Characteristics of critical thinking:  skepticism; identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions; reasoning and problem solving skills  (7.1)
• Reasoning:  deductive reasoning, deductively valid argument, inductive reasoning, inductively strong argument, availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic  (7.2)
• Fixation:  functional fixedness, mental set  (7.3)
• Algorithms, heuristics, and the role of confirmation bias (7.3)
• Effective problem solving sequence (7.3)

By reading and thinking about how the concepts in Module 6 apply to real life, you should be able to:

• Identify which type of knowledge a piece of information is (7.1)
• Recognize examples of deductive and inductive reasoning (7.2)
• Recognize judgments that have probably been influenced by the availability heuristic (7.2)
• Recognize examples of problem solving heuristics and algorithms (7.3)

Analyze, Evaluate, and Create

By reading and thinking about Module 6, participating in classroom activities, and completing out-of-class assignments, you should be able to:

• Use the principles of critical thinking to evaluate information (7.1)
• Explain whether examples of reasoning arguments are deductively valid or inductively strong (7.2)
• Outline how you could try to solve a problem from your life using the effective problem solving sequence (7.3)

7.1. Different kinds of thought and knowledge

• Take a few minutes to write down everything that you know about dogs.
• Do you believe that:
• Psychic ability exists?
• Hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness?
• Magnet therapy is effective for relieving pain?
• Aerobic exercise is an effective treatment for depression?
• UFO’s from outer space have visited earth?

On what do you base your belief or disbelief for the questions above?

Of course, we all know what is meant by the words  think  and  knowledge . You probably also realize that they are not unitary concepts; there are different kinds of thought and knowledge. In this section, let us look at some of these differences. If you are familiar with these different kinds of thought and pay attention to them in your classes, it will help you to focus on the right goals, learn more effectively, and succeed in school. Different assignments and requirements in school call on you to use different kinds of knowledge or thought, so it will be very helpful for you to learn to recognize them (Anderson, et al. 2001).

Factual and conceptual knowledge

Module 5 introduced the idea of declarative memory, which is composed of facts and episodes. If you have ever played a trivia game or watched Jeopardy on TV, you realize that the human brain is able to hold an extraordinary number of facts. Likewise, you realize that each of us has an enormous store of episodes, essentially facts about events that happened in our own lives. It may be difficult to keep that in mind when we are struggling to retrieve one of those facts while taking an exam, however. Part of the problem is that, in contradiction to the advice from Module 5, many students continue to try to memorize course material as a series of unrelated facts (picture a history student simply trying to memorize history as a set of unrelated dates without any coherent story tying them together). Facts in the real world are not random and unorganized, however. It is the way that they are organized that constitutes a second key kind of knowledge, conceptual.

Concepts are nothing more than our mental representations of categories of things in the world. For example, think about dogs. When you do this, you might remember specific facts about dogs, such as they have fur and they bark. You may also recall dogs that you have encountered and picture them in your mind. All of this information (and more) makes up your concept of dog. You can have concepts of simple categories (e.g., triangle), complex categories (e.g., small dogs that sleep all day, eat out of the garbage, and bark at leaves), kinds of people (e.g., psychology professors), events (e.g., birthday parties), and abstract ideas (e.g., justice). Gregory Murphy (2002) refers to concepts as the “glue that holds our mental life together” (p. 1). Very simply, summarizing the world by using concepts is one of the most important cognitive tasks that we do. Our conceptual knowledge  is  our knowledge about the world. Individual concepts are related to each other to form a rich interconnected network of knowledge. For example, think about how the following concepts might be related to each other: dog, pet, play, Frisbee, chew toy, shoe. Or, of more obvious use to you now, how these concepts are related: working memory, long-term memory, declarative memory, procedural memory, and rehearsal? Because our minds have a natural tendency to organize information conceptually, when students try to remember course material as isolated facts, they are working against their strengths.

One last important point about concepts is that they allow you to instantly know a great deal of information about something. For example, if someone hands you a small red object and says, “here is an apple,” they do not have to tell you, “it is something you can eat.” You already know that you can eat it because it is true by virtue of the fact that the object is an apple; this is called drawing an  inference , assuming that something is true on the basis of your previous knowledge (for example, of category membership or of how the world works) or logical reasoning.

Procedural knowledge

Physical skills, such as tying your shoes, doing a cartwheel, and driving a car (or doing all three at the same time, but don’t try this at home) are certainly a kind of knowledge. They are procedural knowledge, the same idea as procedural memory that you saw in Module 5. Mental skills, such as reading, debating, and planning a psychology experiment, are procedural knowledge, as well. In short, procedural knowledge is the knowledge how to do something (Cohen & Eichenbaum, 1993).

Metacognitive knowledge

Floyd used to think that he had a great memory. Now, he has a better memory. Why? Because he finally realized that his memory was not as great as he once thought it was. Because Floyd eventually learned that he often forgets where he put things, he finally developed the habit of putting things in the same place. (Unfortunately, he did not learn this lesson before losing at least 5 watches and a wedding ring.) Because he finally realized that he often forgets to do things, he finally started using the To Do list app on his phone. And so on. Floyd’s insights about the real limitations of his memory have allowed him to remember things that he used to forget.

All of us have knowledge about the way our own minds work. You may know that you have a good memory for people’s names and a poor memory for math formulas. Someone else might realize that they have difficulty remembering to do things, like stopping at the store on the way home. Others still know that they tend to overlook details. This knowledge about our own thinking is actually quite important; it is called metacognitive knowledge, or  metacognition . Like other kinds of thinking skills, it is subject to error. For example, in unpublished research, one of the authors surveyed about 120 General Psychology students on the first day of the term. Among other questions, the students were asked them to predict their grade in the class and report their current Grade Point Average. Two-thirds of the students predicted that their grade in the course would be higher than their GPA. (The reality is that at our college, students tend to earn lower grades in psychology than their overall GPA.) Another example: Students routinely report that they thought they had done well on an exam, only to discover, to their dismay, that they were wrong (more on that important problem in a moment). Both errors reveal a breakdown in metacognition.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

In general, most college students probably do not study enough. For example, using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement, Fosnacht, McCormack, and Lerma (2018) reported that first-year students at 4-year colleges in the U.S. averaged less than 14 hours per week preparing for classes. The typical suggestion is that you should spend two hours outside of class for every hour in class, or 24 – 30 hours per week for a full-time student. Clearly, students in general are nowhere near that recommended mark. Many observers, including some faculty, believe that this shortfall is a result of students being too busy or lazy. Now, it may be true that many students are too busy, with work and family obligations, for example. Others, are not particularly motivated in school, and therefore might correctly be labeled lazy. A third possible explanation, however, is that some students might not think they need to spend this much time. And this is a matter of metacognition. Consider the scenario that we mentioned above, students thinking they had done well on an exam only to discover that they did not. Justin Kruger and David Dunning examined scenarios very much like this in 1999. Kruger and Dunning gave research participants tests measuring humor, logic, and grammar. Then, they asked the participants to assess their own abilities and test performance in these areas. They found that participants in general tended to overestimate their abilities, already a problem with metacognition. Importantly, the participants who scored the lowest overestimated their abilities the most. Specifically, students who scored in the bottom quarter (averaging in the 12th percentile) thought they had scored in the 62nd percentile. This has become known as the  Dunning-Kruger effect . Many individual faculty members have replicated these results with their own student on their course exams, including the authors of this book. Think about it. Some students who just took an exam and performed poorly believe that they did well before seeing their score. It seems very likely that these are the very same students who stopped studying the night before because they thought they were “done.” Quite simply, it is not just that they did not know the material. They did not know that they did not know the material. That is poor metacognition.

In order to develop good metacognitive skills, you should continually monitor your thinking and seek frequent feedback on the accuracy of your thinking (Medina, Castleberry, & Persky 2017). For example, in classes get in the habit of predicting your exam grades. As soon as possible after taking an exam, try to find out which questions you missed and try to figure out why. If you do this soon enough, you may be able to recall the way it felt when you originally answered the question. Did you feel confident that you had answered the question correctly? Then you have just discovered an opportunity to improve your metacognition. Be on the lookout for that feeling and respond with caution.

concept :  a mental representation of a category of things in the world

Dunning-Kruger effect : individuals who are less competent tend to overestimate their abilities more than individuals who are more competent do

inference : an assumption about the truth of something that is not stated. Inferences come from our prior knowledge and experience, and from logical reasoning

metacognition :  knowledge about one’s own cognitive processes; thinking about your thinking

Critical thinking

One particular kind of knowledge or thinking skill that is related to metacognition is  critical thinking (Chew, 2020). You may have noticed that critical thinking is an objective in many college courses, and thus it could be a legitimate topic to cover in nearly any college course. It is particularly appropriate in psychology, however. As the science of (behavior and) mental processes, psychology is obviously well suited to be the discipline through which you should be introduced to this important way of thinking.

More importantly, there is a particular need to use critical thinking in psychology. We are all, in a way, experts in human behavior and mental processes, having engaged in them literally since birth. Thus, perhaps more than in any other class, students typically approach psychology with very clear ideas and opinions about its subject matter. That is, students already “know” a lot about psychology. The problem is, “it ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so” (Ward, quoted in Gilovich 1991). Indeed, many of students’ preconceptions about psychology are just plain wrong. Randolph Smith (2002) wrote a book about critical thinking in psychology called  Challenging Your Preconceptions,  highlighting this fact. On the other hand, many of students’ preconceptions about psychology are just plain right! But wait, how do you know which of your preconceptions are right and which are wrong? And when you come across a research finding or theory in this class that contradicts your preconceptions, what will you do? Will you stick to your original idea, discounting the information from the class? Will you immediately change your mind? Critical thinking can help us sort through this confusing mess.

But what is critical thinking? The goal of critical thinking is simple to state (but extraordinarily difficult to achieve): it is to be right, to draw the correct conclusions, to believe in things that are true and to disbelieve things that are false. We will provide two definitions of critical thinking (or, if you like, one large definition with two distinct parts). First, a more conceptual one: Critical thinking is thinking like a scientist in your everyday life (Schmaltz, Jansen, & Wenckowski, 2017).  Our second definition is more operational; it is simply a list of skills that are essential to be a critical thinker. Critical thinking entails solid reasoning and problem solving skills; skepticism; and an ability to identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions. Excellent deductive and inductive reasoning, and problem solving skills contribute to critical thinking. So, you can consider the subject matter of sections 7.2 and 7.3 to be part of critical thinking. Because we will be devoting considerable time to these concepts in the rest of the module, let us begin with a discussion about the other aspects of critical thinking.

Let’s address that first part of the definition. Scientists form hypotheses, or predictions about some possible future observations. Then, they collect data, or information (think of this as making those future observations). They do their best to make unbiased observations using reliable techniques that have been verified by others. Then, and only then, they draw a conclusion about what those observations mean. Oh, and do not forget the most important part. “Conclusion” is probably not the most appropriate word because this conclusion is only tentative. A scientist is always prepared that someone else might come along and produce new observations that would require a new conclusion be drawn. Wow! If you like to be right, you could do a lot worse than using a process like this.

A Critical Thinker’s Toolkit 

Now for the second part of the definition. Good critical thinkers (and scientists) rely on a variety of tools to evaluate information. Perhaps the most recognizable tool for critical thinking is  skepticism (and this term provides the clearest link to the thinking like a scientist definition, as you are about to see). Some people intend it as an insult when they call someone a skeptic. But if someone calls you a skeptic, if they are using the term correctly, you should consider it a great compliment. Simply put, skepticism is a way of thinking in which you refrain from drawing a conclusion or changing your mind until good evidence has been provided. People from Missouri should recognize this principle, as Missouri is known as the Show-Me State. As a skeptic, you are not inclined to believe something just because someone said so, because someone else believes it, or because it sounds reasonable. You must be persuaded by high quality evidence.

Of course, if that evidence is produced, you have a responsibility as a skeptic to change your belief. Failure to change a belief in the face of good evidence is not skepticism; skepticism has open mindedness at its core. M. Neil Browne and Stuart Keeley (2018) use the term weak sense critical thinking to describe critical thinking behaviors that are used only to strengthen a prior belief. Strong sense critical thinking, on the other hand, has as its goal reaching the best conclusion. Sometimes that means strengthening your prior belief, but sometimes it means changing your belief to accommodate the better evidence.

Many times, a failure to think critically or weak sense critical thinking is related to a  bias , an inclination, tendency, leaning, or prejudice. Everybody has biases, but many people are unaware of them. Awareness of your own biases gives you the opportunity to control or counteract them. Unfortunately, however, many people are happy to let their biases creep into their attempts to persuade others; indeed, it is a key part of their persuasive strategy. To see how these biases influence messages, just look at the different descriptions and explanations of the same events given by people of different ages or income brackets, or conservative versus liberal commentators, or by commentators from different parts of the world. Of course, to be successful, these people who are consciously using their biases must disguise them. Even undisguised biases can be difficult to identify, so disguised ones can be nearly impossible.

Here are some common sources of biases:

• Personal values and beliefs.  Some people believe that human beings are basically driven to seek power and that they are typically in competition with one another over scarce resources. These beliefs are similar to the world-view that political scientists call “realism.” Other people believe that human beings prefer to cooperate and that, given the chance, they will do so. These beliefs are similar to the world-view known as “idealism.” For many people, these deeply held beliefs can influence, or bias, their interpretations of such wide ranging situations as the behavior of nations and their leaders or the behavior of the driver in the car ahead of you. For example, if your worldview is that people are typically in competition and someone cuts you off on the highway, you may assume that the driver did it purposely to get ahead of you. Other types of beliefs about the way the world is or the way the world should be, for example, political beliefs, can similarly become a significant source of bias.
• Racism, sexism, ageism and other forms of prejudice and bigotry.  These are, sadly, a common source of bias in many people. They are essentially a special kind of “belief about the way the world is.” These beliefs—for example, that women do not make effective leaders—lead people to ignore contradictory evidence (examples of effective women leaders, or research that disputes the belief) and to interpret ambiguous evidence in a way consistent with the belief.
• Self-interest.  When particular people benefit from things turning out a certain way, they can sometimes be very susceptible to letting that interest bias them. For example, a company that will earn a profit if they sell their product may have a bias in the way that they give information about their product. A union that will benefit if its members get a generous contract might have a bias in the way it presents information about salaries at competing organizations. (Note that our inclusion of examples describing both companies and unions is an explicit attempt to control for our own personal biases). Home buyers are often dismayed to discover that they purchased their dream house from someone whose self-interest led them to lie about flooding problems in the basement or back yard. This principle, the biasing power of self-interest, is likely what led to the famous phrase  Caveat Emptor  (let the buyer beware) .  

Knowing that these types of biases exist will help you evaluate evidence more critically. Do not forget, though, that people are not always keen to let you discover the sources of biases in their arguments. For example, companies or political organizations can sometimes disguise their support of a research study by contracting with a university professor, who comes complete with a seemingly unbiased institutional affiliation, to conduct the study.

People’s biases, conscious or unconscious, can lead them to make omissions, distortions, and assumptions that undermine our ability to correctly evaluate evidence. It is essential that you look for these elements. Always ask, what is missing, what is not as it appears, and what is being assumed here? For example, consider this (fictional) chart from an ad reporting customer satisfaction at 4 local health clubs.

Clearly, from the results of the chart, one would be tempted to give Club C a try, as customer satisfaction is much higher than for the other 3 clubs.

There are so many distortions and omissions in this chart, however, that it is actually quite meaningless. First, how was satisfaction measured? Do the bars represent responses to a survey? If so, how were the questions asked? Most importantly, where is the missing scale for the chart? Although the differences look quite large, are they really?

Well, here is the same chart, with a different scale, this time labeled:

Club C is not so impressive any more, is it? In fact, all of the health clubs have customer satisfaction ratings (whatever that means) between 85% and 88%. In the first chart, the entire scale of the graph included only the percentages between 83 and 89. This “judicious” choice of scale—some would call it a distortion—and omission of that scale from the chart make the tiny differences among the clubs seem important, however.

Also, in order to be a critical thinker, you need to learn to pay attention to the assumptions that underlie a message. Let us briefly illustrate the role of assumptions by touching on some people’s beliefs about the criminal justice system in the US. Some believe that a major problem with our judicial system is that many criminals go free because of legal technicalities. Others believe that a major problem is that many innocent people are convicted of crimes. The simple fact is, both types of errors occur. A person’s conclusion about which flaw in our judicial system is the greater tragedy is based on an assumption about which of these is the more serious error (letting the guilty go free or convicting the innocent). This type of assumption is called a value assumption (Browne and Keeley, 2018). It reflects the differences in values that people develop, differences that may lead us to disregard valid evidence that does not fit in with our particular values.

Oh, by the way, some students probably noticed this, but the seven tips for evaluating information that we shared in Module 1 are related to this. Actually, they are part of this section. The tips are, to a very large degree, set of ideas you can use to help you identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions. If you do not remember this section, we strongly recommend you take a few minutes to review it.

skepticism :  a way of thinking in which you refrain from drawing a conclusion or changing your mind until good evidence has been provided

bias : an inclination, tendency, leaning, or prejudice

• Which of your beliefs (or disbeliefs) from the Activate exercise for this section were derived from a process of critical thinking? If some of your beliefs were not based on critical thinking, are you willing to reassess these beliefs? If the answer is no, why do you think that is? If the answer is yes, what concrete steps will you take?

7.2 Reasoning and Judgment

• What percentage of kidnappings are committed by strangers?
• Which area of the house is riskiest: kitchen, bathroom, or stairs?
• What is the most common cancer in the US?
• What percentage of workplace homicides are committed by co-workers?

An essential set of procedural thinking skills is  reasoning , the ability to generate and evaluate solid conclusions from a set of statements or evidence. You should note that these conclusions (when they are generated instead of being evaluated) are one key type of inference that we described in Section 7.1. There are two main types of reasoning, deductive and inductive.

Deductive reasoning

Suppose your teacher tells you that if you get an A on the final exam in a course, you will get an A for the whole course. Then, you get an A on the final exam. What will your final course grade be? Most people can see instantly that you can conclude with certainty that you will get an A for the course. This is a type of reasoning called  deductive reasoning , which is defined as reasoning in which a conclusion is guaranteed to be true as long as the statements leading to it are true. The three statements can be listed as an  argument , with two beginning statements and a conclusion:

Statement 1: If you get an A on the final exam, you will get an A for the course

Statement 2: You get an A on the final exam

Conclusion: You will get an A for the course

This particular arrangement, in which true beginning statements lead to a guaranteed true conclusion, is known as a  deductively valid argument . Although deductive reasoning is often the subject of abstract, brain-teasing, puzzle-like word problems, it is actually an extremely important type of everyday reasoning. It is just hard to recognize sometimes. For example, imagine that you are looking for your car keys and you realize that they are either in the kitchen drawer or in your book bag. After looking in the kitchen drawer, you instantly know that they must be in your book bag. That conclusion results from a simple deductive reasoning argument. In addition, solid deductive reasoning skills are necessary for you to succeed in the sciences, philosophy, math, computer programming, and any endeavor involving the use of logic to persuade others to your point of view or to evaluate others’ arguments.

Cognitive psychologists, and before them philosophers, have been quite interested in deductive reasoning, not so much for its practical applications, but for the insights it can offer them about the ways that human beings think. One of the early ideas to emerge from the examination of deductive reasoning is that people learn (or develop) mental versions of rules that allow them to solve these types of reasoning problems (Braine, 1978; Braine, Reiser, & Rumain, 1984). The best way to see this point of view is to realize that there are different possible rules, and some of them are very simple. For example, consider this rule of logic:

therefore q

Logical rules are often presented abstractly, as letters, in order to imply that they can be used in very many specific situations. Here is a concrete version of the of the same rule:

I’ll either have pizza or a hamburger for dinner tonight (p or q)

I won’t have pizza (not p)

Therefore, I’ll have a hamburger (therefore q)

This kind of reasoning seems so natural, so easy, that it is quite plausible that we would use a version of this rule in our daily lives. At least, it seems more plausible than some of the alternative possibilities—for example, that we need to have experience with the specific situation (pizza or hamburger, in this case) in order to solve this type of problem easily. So perhaps there is a form of natural logic (Rips, 1990) that contains very simple versions of logical rules. When we are faced with a reasoning problem that maps onto one of these rules, we use the rule.

But be very careful; things are not always as easy as they seem. Even these simple rules are not so simple. For example, consider the following rule. Many people fail to realize that this rule is just as valid as the pizza or hamburger rule above.

if p, then q

therefore, not p

Concrete version:

If I eat dinner, then I will have dessert

I did not have dessert

Therefore, I did not eat dinner

The simple fact is, it can be very difficult for people to apply rules of deductive logic correctly; as a result, they make many errors when trying to do so. Is this a deductively valid argument or not?

Students who like school study a lot

Students who study a lot get good grades

Jane does not like school

Therefore, Jane does not get good grades

Many people are surprised to discover that this is not a logically valid argument; the conclusion is not guaranteed to be true from the beginning statements. Although the first statement says that students who like school study a lot, it does NOT say that students who do not like school do not study a lot. In other words, it may very well be possible to study a lot without liking school. Even people who sometimes get problems like this right might not be using the rules of deductive reasoning. Instead, they might just be making judgments for examples they know, in this case, remembering instances of people who get good grades despite not liking school.

Making deductive reasoning even more difficult is the fact that there are two important properties that an argument may have. One, it can be valid or invalid (meaning that the conclusion does or does not follow logically from the statements leading up to it). Two, an argument (or more correctly, its conclusion) can be true or false. Here is an example of an argument that is logically valid, but has a false conclusion (at least we think it is false).

Either you are eleven feet tall or the Grand Canyon was created by a spaceship crashing into the earth.

You are not eleven feet tall

Therefore the Grand Canyon was created by a spaceship crashing into the earth

This argument has the exact same form as the pizza or hamburger argument above, making it is deductively valid. The conclusion is so false, however, that it is absurd (of course, the reason the conclusion is false is that the first statement is false). When people are judging arguments, they tend to not observe the difference between deductive validity and the empirical truth of statements or conclusions. If the elements of an argument happen to be true, people are likely to judge the argument logically valid; if the elements are false, they will very likely judge it invalid (Markovits & Bouffard-Bouchard, 1992; Moshman & Franks, 1986). Thus, it seems a stretch to say that people are using these logical rules to judge the validity of arguments. Many psychologists believe that most people actually have very limited deductive reasoning skills (Johnson-Laird, 1999). They argue that when faced with a problem for which deductive logic is required, people resort to some simpler technique, such as matching terms that appear in the statements and the conclusion (Evans, 1982). This might not seem like a problem, but what if reasoners believe that the elements are true and they happen to be wrong; they will would believe that they are using a form of reasoning that guarantees they are correct and yet be wrong.

deductive reasoning :  a type of reasoning in which the conclusion is guaranteed to be true any time the statements leading up to it are true

argument :  a set of statements in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion

deductively valid argument :  an argument for which true beginning statements guarantee that the conclusion is true

Inductive reasoning and judgment

Every day, you make many judgments about the likelihood of one thing or another. Whether you realize it or not, you are practicing  inductive reasoning   on a daily basis. In inductive reasoning arguments, a conclusion is likely whenever the statements preceding it are true. The first thing to notice about inductive reasoning is that, by definition, you can never be sure about your conclusion; you can only estimate how likely the conclusion is. Inductive reasoning may lead you to focus on Memory Encoding and Recoding when you study for the exam, but it is possible the instructor will ask more questions about Memory Retrieval instead. Unlike deductive reasoning, the conclusions you reach through inductive reasoning are only probable, not certain. That is why scientists consider inductive reasoning weaker than deductive reasoning. But imagine how hard it would be for us to function if we could not act unless we were certain about the outcome.

Inductive reasoning can be represented as logical arguments consisting of statements and a conclusion, just as deductive reasoning can be. In an inductive argument, you are given some statements and a conclusion (or you are given some statements and must draw a conclusion). An argument is  inductively strong   if the conclusion would be very probable whenever the statements are true. So, for example, here is an inductively strong argument:

• Statement #1: The forecaster on Channel 2 said it is going to rain today.
• Statement #2: The forecaster on Channel 5 said it is going to rain today.
• Statement #3: It is very cloudy and humid.
• Statement #4: You just heard thunder.
• Conclusion (or judgment): It is going to rain today.

Think of the statements as evidence, on the basis of which you will draw a conclusion. So, based on the evidence presented in the four statements, it is very likely that it will rain today. Will it definitely rain today? Certainly not. We can all think of times that the weather forecaster was wrong.

A true story: Some years ago psychology student was watching a baseball playoff game between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Los Angeles Dodgers. A graphic on the screen had just informed the audience that the Cardinal at bat, (Hall of Fame shortstop) Ozzie Smith, a switch hitter batting left-handed for this plate appearance, had never, in nearly 3000 career at-bats, hit a home run left-handed. The student, who had just learned about inductive reasoning in his psychology class, turned to his companion (a Cardinals fan) and smugly said, “It is an inductively strong argument that Ozzie Smith will not hit a home run.” He turned back to face the television just in time to watch the ball sail over the right field fence for a home run. Although the student felt foolish at the time, he was not wrong. It was an inductively strong argument; 3000 at-bats is an awful lot of evidence suggesting that the Wizard of Ozz (as he was known) would not be hitting one out of the park (think of each at-bat without a home run as a statement in an inductive argument). Sadly (for the die-hard Cubs fan and Cardinals-hating student), despite the strength of the argument, the conclusion was wrong.

Given the possibility that we might draw an incorrect conclusion even with an inductively strong argument, we really want to be sure that we do, in fact, make inductively strong arguments. If we judge something probable, it had better be probable. If we judge something nearly impossible, it had better not happen. Think of inductive reasoning, then, as making reasonably accurate judgments of the probability of some conclusion given a set of evidence.

We base many decisions in our lives on inductive reasoning. For example:

Statement #1: Psychology is not my best subject

Statement #2: My psychology instructor has a reputation for giving difficult exams

Statement #3: My first psychology exam was much harder than I expected

Judgment: The next exam will probably be very difficult.

Decision: I will study tonight instead of watching Netflix.

Some other examples of judgments that people commonly make in a school context include judgments of the likelihood that:

• A particular class will be interesting/useful/difficult
• You will be able to finish writing a paper by next week if you go out tonight
• Your laptop’s battery will last through the next trip to the library
• You will not miss anything important if you skip class tomorrow
• Your instructor will not notice if you skip class tomorrow
• You will be able to find a book that you will need for a paper
• There will be an essay question about Memory Encoding on the next exam

Tversky and Kahneman (1983) recognized that there are two general ways that we might make these judgments; they termed them extensional (i.e., following the laws of probability) and intuitive (i.e., using shortcuts or heuristics, see below). We will use a similar distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 thinking, as described by Keith Stanovich and his colleagues (Evans and Stanovich, 2013; Stanovich and West, 2000). Type 1 thinking is fast, automatic, effortful, and emotional. In fact, it is hardly fair to call it reasoning at all, as judgments just seem to pop into one’s head. Type 2 thinking , on the other hand, is slow, effortful, and logical. So obviously, it is more likely to lead to a correct judgment, or an optimal decision. The problem is, we tend to over-rely on Type 1. Now, we are not saying that Type 2 is the right way to go for every decision or judgment we make. It seems a bit much, for example, to engage in a step-by-step logical reasoning procedure to decide whether we will have chicken or fish for dinner tonight.

Many bad decisions in some very important contexts, however, can be traced back to poor judgments of the likelihood of certain risks or outcomes that result from the use of Type 1 when a more logical reasoning process would have been more appropriate. For example:

Statement #1: It is late at night.

Statement #2: Albert has been drinking beer for the past five hours at a party.

Statement #3: Albert is not exactly sure where he is or how far away home is.

Judgment: Albert will have no difficulty walking home.

Decision: He walks home alone.

As you can see in this example, the three statements backing up the judgment do not really support it. In other words, this argument is not inductively strong because it is based on judgments that ignore the laws of probability. What are the chances that someone facing these conditions will be able to walk home alone easily? And one need not be drunk to make poor decisions based on judgments that just pop into our heads.

The truth is that many of our probability judgments do not come very close to what the laws of probability say they should be. Think about it. In order for us to reason in accordance with these laws, we would need to know the laws of probability, which would allow us to calculate the relationship between particular pieces of evidence and the probability of some outcome (i.e., how much likelihood should change given a piece of evidence), and we would have to do these heavy math calculations in our heads. After all, that is what Type 2 requires. Needless to say, even if we were motivated, we often do not even know how to apply Type 2 reasoning in many cases.

So what do we do when we don’t have the knowledge, skills, or time required to make the correct mathematical judgment? Do we hold off and wait until we can get better evidence? Do we read up on probability and fire up our calculator app so we can compute the correct probability? Of course not. We rely on Type 1 thinking. We “wing it.” That is, we come up with a likelihood estimate using some means at our disposal. Psychologists use the term heuristic to describe the type of “winging it” we are talking about. A  heuristic   is a shortcut strategy that we use to make some judgment or solve some problem (see Section 7.3). Heuristics are easy and quick, think of them as the basic procedures that are characteristic of Type 1.  They can absolutely lead to reasonably good judgments and decisions in some situations (like choosing between chicken and fish for dinner). They are, however, far from foolproof. There are, in fact, quite a lot of situations in which heuristics can lead us to make incorrect judgments, and in many cases the decisions based on those judgments can have serious consequences.

Let us return to the activity that begins this section. You were asked to judge the likelihood (or frequency) of certain events and risks. You were free to come up with your own evidence (or statements) to make these judgments. This is where a heuristic crops up. As a judgment shortcut, we tend to generate specific examples of those very events to help us decide their likelihood or frequency. For example, if we are asked to judge how common, frequent, or likely a particular type of cancer is, many of our statements would be examples of specific cancer cases:

Statement #1: Andy Kaufman (comedian) had lung cancer.

Statement #2: Colin Powell (US Secretary of State) had prostate cancer.

Statement #3: Bob Marley (musician) had skin and brain cancer

Statement #4: Sandra Day O’Connor (Supreme Court Justice) had breast cancer.

Statement #5: Fred Rogers (children’s entertainer) had stomach cancer.

Statement #6: Robin Roberts (news anchor) had breast cancer.

Statement #7: Bette Davis (actress) had breast cancer.

Judgment: Breast cancer is the most common type.

Your own experience or memory may also tell you that breast cancer is the most common type. But it is not (although it is common). Actually, skin cancer is the most common type in the US. We make the same types of misjudgments all the time because we do not generate the examples or evidence according to their actual frequencies or probabilities. Instead, we have a tendency (or bias) to search for the examples in memory; if they are easy to retrieve, we assume that they are common. To rephrase this in the language of the heuristic, events seem more likely to the extent that they are available to memory. This bias has been termed the  availability heuristic   (Kahneman and Tversky, 1974).

The fact that we use the availability heuristic does not automatically mean that our judgment is wrong. The reason we use heuristics in the first place is that they work fairly well in many cases (and, of course that they are easy to use). So, the easiest examples to think of sometimes are the most common ones. Is it more likely that a member of the U.S. Senate is a man or a woman? Most people have a much easier time generating examples of male senators. And as it turns out, the U.S. Senate has many more men than women (74 to 26 in 2020). In this case, then, the availability heuristic would lead you to make the correct judgment; it is far more likely that a senator would be a man.

In many other cases, however, the availability heuristic will lead us astray. This is because events can be memorable for many reasons other than their frequency. Section 5.2, Encoding Meaning, suggested that one good way to encode the meaning of some information is to form a mental image of it. Thus, information that has been pictured mentally will be more available to memory. Indeed, an event that is vivid and easily pictured will trick many people into supposing that type of event is more common than it actually is. Repetition of information will also make it more memorable. So, if the same event is described to you in a magazine, on the evening news, on a podcast that you listen to, and in your Facebook feed; it will be very available to memory. Again, the availability heuristic will cause you to misperceive the frequency of these types of events.

Most interestingly, information that is unusual is more memorable. Suppose we give you the following list of words to remember: box, flower, letter, platypus, oven, boat, newspaper, purse, drum, car. Very likely, the easiest word to remember would be platypus, the unusual one. The same thing occurs with memories of events. An event may be available to memory because it is unusual, yet the availability heuristic leads us to judge that the event is common. Did you catch that? In these cases, the availability heuristic makes us think the exact opposite of the true frequency. We end up thinking something is common because it is unusual (and therefore memorable). Yikes.

The misapplication of the availability heuristic sometimes has unfortunate results. For example, if you went to K-12 school in the US over the past 10 years, it is extremely likely that you have participated in lockdown and active shooter drills. Of course, everyone is trying to prevent the tragedy of another school shooting. And believe us, we are not trying to minimize how terrible the tragedy is. But the truth of the matter is, school shootings are extremely rare. Because the federal government does not keep a database of school shootings, the Washington Post has maintained their own running tally. Between 1999 and January 2020 (the date of the most recent school shooting with a death in the US at of the time this paragraph was written), the Post reported a total of 254 people died in school shootings in the US. Not 254 per year, 254 total. That is an average of 12 per year. Of course, that is 254 people who should not have died (particularly because many were children), but in a country with approximately 60,000,000 students and teachers, this is a very small risk.

But many students and teachers are terrified that they will be victims of school shootings because of the availability heuristic. It is so easy to think of examples (they are very available to memory) that people believe the event is very common. It is not. And there is a downside to this. We happen to believe that there is an enormous gun violence problem in the United States. According the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 39,773 firearm deaths in the US in 2017. Fifteen of those deaths were in school shootings, according to the Post. 60% of those deaths were suicides. When people pay attention to the school shooting risk (low), they often fail to notice the much larger risk.

And examples like this are by no means unique. The authors of this book have been teaching psychology since the 1990’s. We have been able to make the exact same arguments about the misapplication of the availability heuristics and keep them current by simply swapping out for the “fear of the day.” In the 1990’s it was children being kidnapped by strangers (it was known as “stranger danger”) despite the facts that kidnappings accounted for only 2% of the violent crimes committed against children, and only 24% of kidnappings are committed by strangers (US Department of Justice, 2007). This fear overlapped with the fear of terrorism that gripped the country after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and US Pentagon and still plagues the population of the US somewhat in 2020. After a well-publicized, sensational act of violence, people are extremely likely to increase their estimates of the chances that they, too, will be victims of terror. Think about the reality, however. In October of 2001, a terrorist mailed anthrax spores to members of the US government and a number of media companies. A total of five people died as a result of this attack. The nation was nearly paralyzed by the fear of dying from the attack; in reality the probability of an individual person dying was 0.00000002.

The availability heuristic can lead you to make incorrect judgments in a school setting as well. For example, suppose you are trying to decide if you should take a class from a particular math professor. You might try to make a judgment of how good a teacher she is by recalling instances of friends and acquaintances making comments about her teaching skill. You may have some examples that suggest that she is a poor teacher very available to memory, so on the basis of the availability heuristic you judge her a poor teacher and decide to take the class from someone else. What if, however, the instances you recalled were all from the same person, and this person happens to be a very colorful storyteller? The subsequent ease of remembering the instances might not indicate that the professor is a poor teacher after all.

Although the availability heuristic is obviously important, it is not the only judgment heuristic we use. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman examined the role of heuristics in inductive reasoning in a long series of studies. Kahneman received a Nobel Prize in Economics for this research in 2002, and Tversky would have certainly received one as well if he had not died of melanoma at age 59 in 1996 (Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously). Kahneman and Tversky demonstrated repeatedly that people do not reason in ways that are consistent with the laws of probability. They identified several heuristic strategies that people use instead to make judgments about likelihood. The importance of this work for economics (and the reason that Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize) is that earlier economic theories had assumed that people do make judgments rationally, that is, in agreement with the laws of probability.

Another common heuristic that people use for making judgments is the  representativeness heuristic (Kahneman & Tversky 1973). Suppose we describe a person to you. He is quiet and shy, has an unassuming personality, and likes to work with numbers. Is this person more likely to be an accountant or an attorney? If you said accountant, you were probably using the representativeness heuristic. Our imaginary person is judged likely to be an accountant because he resembles, or is representative of the concept of, an accountant. When research participants are asked to make judgments such as these, the only thing that seems to matter is the representativeness of the description. For example, if told that the person described is in a room that contains 70 attorneys and 30 accountants, participants will still assume that he is an accountant.

inductive reasoning :  a type of reasoning in which we make judgments about likelihood from sets of evidence

inductively strong argument :  an inductive argument in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion that is probably true

heuristic :  a shortcut strategy that we use to make judgments and solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

availability heuristic :  judging the frequency or likelihood of some event type according to how easily examples of the event can be called to mind (i.e., how available they are to memory)

representativeness heuristic:   judging the likelihood that something is a member of a category on the basis of how much it resembles a typical category member (i.e., how representative it is of the category)

Type 1 thinking : fast, automatic, and emotional thinking.

Type 2 thinking : slow, effortful, and logical thinking.

• What percentage of workplace homicides are co-worker violence?

Many people get these questions wrong. The answers are 10%; stairs; skin; 6%. How close were your answers? Explain how the availability heuristic might have led you to make the incorrect judgments.

• Can you think of some other judgments that you have made (or beliefs that you have) that might have been influenced by the availability heuristic?

7.3 Problem Solving

• Please take a few minutes to list a number of problems that you are facing right now.
• Now write about a problem that you recently solved.
• What is your definition of a problem?

Mary has a problem. Her daughter, ordinarily quite eager to please, appears to delight in being the last person to do anything. Whether getting ready for school, going to piano lessons or karate class, or even going out with her friends, she seems unwilling or unable to get ready on time. Other people have different kinds of problems. For example, many students work at jobs, have numerous family commitments, and are facing a course schedule full of difficult exams, assignments, papers, and speeches. How can they find enough time to devote to their studies and still fulfill their other obligations? Speaking of students and their problems: Show that a ball thrown vertically upward with initial velocity v0 takes twice as much time to return as to reach the highest point (from Spiegel, 1981).

These are three very different situations, but we have called them all problems. What makes them all the same, despite the differences? A psychologist might define a  problem   as a situation with an initial state, a goal state, and a set of possible intermediate states. Somewhat more meaningfully, we might consider a problem a situation in which you are in here one state (e.g., daughter is always late), you want to be there in another state (e.g., daughter is not always late), and with no obvious way to get from here to there. Defined this way, each of the three situations we outlined can now be seen as an example of the same general concept, a problem. At this point, you might begin to wonder what is not a problem, given such a general definition. It seems that nearly every non-routine task we engage in could qualify as a problem. As long as you realize that problems are not necessarily bad (it can be quite fun and satisfying to rise to the challenge and solve a problem), this may be a useful way to think about it.

Can we identify a set of problem-solving skills that would apply to these very different kinds of situations? That task, in a nutshell, is a major goal of this section. Let us try to begin to make sense of the wide variety of ways that problems can be solved with an important observation: the process of solving problems can be divided into two key parts. First, people have to notice, comprehend, and represent the problem properly in their minds (called  problem representation ). Second, they have to apply some kind of solution strategy to the problem. Psychologists have studied both of these key parts of the process in detail.

When you first think about the problem-solving process, you might guess that most of our difficulties would occur because we are failing in the second step, the application of strategies. Although this can be a significant difficulty much of the time, the more important source of difficulty is probably problem representation. In short, we often fail to solve a problem because we are looking at it, or thinking about it, the wrong way.

problem :  a situation in which we are in an initial state, have a desired goal state, and there is a number of possible intermediate states (i.e., there is no obvious way to get from the initial to the goal state)

problem representation :  noticing, comprehending and forming a mental conception of a problem

Defining and Mentally Representing Problems in Order to Solve Them

So, the main obstacle to solving a problem is that we do not clearly understand exactly what the problem is. Recall the problem with Mary’s daughter always being late. One way to represent, or to think about, this problem is that she is being defiant. She refuses to get ready in time. This type of representation or definition suggests a particular type of solution. Another way to think about the problem, however, is to consider the possibility that she is simply being sidetracked by interesting diversions. This different conception of what the problem is (i.e., different representation) suggests a very different solution strategy. For example, if Mary defines the problem as defiance, she may be tempted to solve the problem using some kind of coercive tactics, that is, to assert her authority as her mother and force her to listen. On the other hand, if Mary defines the problem as distraction, she may try to solve it by simply removing the distracting objects.

As you might guess, when a problem is represented one way, the solution may seem very difficult, or even impossible. Seen another way, the solution might be very easy. For example, consider the following problem (from Nasar, 1998):

Two bicyclists start 20 miles apart and head toward each other, each going at a steady rate of 10 miles per hour. At the same time, a fly that travels at a steady 15 miles per hour starts from the front wheel of the southbound bicycle and flies to the front wheel of the northbound one, then turns around and flies to the front wheel of the southbound one again, and continues in this manner until he is crushed between the two front wheels. Question: what total distance did the fly cover?

Please take a few minutes to try to solve this problem.

Most people represent this problem as a question about a fly because, well, that is how the question is asked. The solution, using this representation, is to figure out how far the fly travels on the first leg of its journey, then add this total to how far it travels on the second leg of its journey (when it turns around and returns to the first bicycle), then continue to add the smaller distance from each leg of the journey until you converge on the correct answer. You would have to be quite skilled at math to solve this problem, and you would probably need some time and pencil and paper to do it.

If you consider a different representation, however, you can solve this problem in your head. Instead of thinking about it as a question about a fly, think about it as a question about the bicycles. They are 20 miles apart, and each is traveling 10 miles per hour. How long will it take for the bicycles to reach each other? Right, one hour. The fly is traveling 15 miles per hour; therefore, it will travel a total of 15 miles back and forth in the hour before the bicycles meet. Represented one way (as a problem about a fly), the problem is quite difficult. Represented another way (as a problem about two bicycles), it is easy. Changing your representation of a problem is sometimes the best—sometimes the only—way to solve it.

Unfortunately, however, changing a problem’s representation is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Often, problem solvers get stuck looking at a problem one way. This is called  fixation . Most people who represent the preceding problem as a problem about a fly probably do not pause to reconsider, and consequently change, their representation. A parent who thinks her daughter is being defiant is unlikely to consider the possibility that her behavior is far less purposeful.

Problem-solving fixation was examined by a group of German psychologists called Gestalt psychologists during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Karl Dunker, for example, discovered an important type of failure to take a different perspective called  functional fixedness . Imagine being a participant in one of his experiments. You are asked to figure out how to mount two candles on a door and are given an assortment of odds and ends, including a small empty cardboard box and some thumbtacks. Perhaps you have already figured out a solution: tack the box to the door so it forms a platform, then put the candles on top of the box. Most people are able to arrive at this solution. Imagine a slight variation of the procedure, however. What if, instead of being empty, the box had matches in it? Most people given this version of the problem do not arrive at the solution given above. Why? Because it seems to people that when the box contains matches, it already has a function; it is a matchbox. People are unlikely to consider a new function for an object that already has a function. This is functional fixedness.

Mental set is a type of fixation in which the problem solver gets stuck using the same solution strategy that has been successful in the past, even though the solution may no longer be useful. It is commonly seen when students do math problems for homework. Often, several problems in a row require the reapplication of the same solution strategy. Then, without warning, the next problem in the set requires a new strategy. Many students attempt to apply the formerly successful strategy on the new problem and therefore cannot come up with a correct answer.

The thing to remember is that you cannot solve a problem unless you correctly identify what it is to begin with (initial state) and what you want the end result to be (goal state). That may mean looking at the problem from a different angle and representing it in a new way. The correct representation does not guarantee a successful solution, but it certainly puts you on the right track.

A bit more optimistically, the Gestalt psychologists discovered what may be considered the opposite of fixation, namely  insight . Sometimes the solution to a problem just seems to pop into your head. Wolfgang Kohler examined insight by posing many different problems to chimpanzees, principally problems pertaining to their acquisition of out-of-reach food. In one version, a banana was placed outside of a chimpanzee’s cage and a short stick inside the cage. The stick was too short to retrieve the banana, but was long enough to retrieve a longer stick also located outside of the cage. This second stick was long enough to retrieve the banana. After trying, and failing, to reach the banana with the shorter stick, the chimpanzee would try a couple of random-seeming attempts, react with some apparent frustration or anger, then suddenly rush to the longer stick, the correct solution fully realized at this point. This sudden appearance of the solution, observed many times with many different problems, was termed insight by Kohler.

Lest you think it pertains to chimpanzees only, Karl Dunker demonstrated that children also solve problems through insight in the 1930s. More importantly, you have probably experienced insight yourself. Think back to a time when you were trying to solve a difficult problem. After struggling for a while, you gave up. Hours later, the solution just popped into your head, perhaps when you were taking a walk, eating dinner, or lying in bed.

fixation :  when a problem solver gets stuck looking at a problem a particular way and cannot change his or her representation of it (or his or her intended solution strategy)

functional fixedness :  a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver cannot think of a new use for an object that already has a function

mental set :  a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver gets stuck using the same solution strategy that has been successful in the past

insight :  a sudden realization of a solution to a problem

Solving Problems by Trial and Error

Correctly identifying the problem and your goal for a solution is a good start, but recall the psychologist’s definition of a problem: it includes a set of possible intermediate states. Viewed this way, a problem can be solved satisfactorily only if one can find a path through some of these intermediate states to the goal. Imagine a fairly routine problem, finding a new route to school when your ordinary route is blocked (by road construction, for example). At each intersection, you may turn left, turn right, or go straight. A satisfactory solution to the problem (of getting to school) is a sequence of selections at each intersection that allows you to wind up at school.

If you had all the time in the world to get to school, you might try choosing intermediate states randomly. At one corner you turn left, the next you go straight, then you go left again, then right, then right, then straight. Unfortunately, trial and error will not necessarily get you where you want to go, and even if it does, it is not the fastest way to get there. For example, when a friend of ours was in college, he got lost on the way to a concert and attempted to find the venue by choosing streets to turn onto randomly (this was long before the use of GPS). Amazingly enough, the strategy worked, although he did end up missing two out of the three bands who played that night.

Trial and error is not all bad, however. B.F. Skinner, a prominent behaviorist psychologist, suggested that people often behave randomly in order to see what effect the behavior has on the environment and what subsequent effect this environmental change has on them. This seems particularly true for the very young person. Picture a child filling a household’s fish tank with toilet paper, for example. To a child trying to develop a repertoire of creative problem-solving strategies, an odd and random behavior might be just the ticket. Eventually, the exasperated parent hopes, the child will discover that many of these random behaviors do not successfully solve problems; in fact, in many cases they create problems. Thus, one would expect a decrease in this random behavior as a child matures. You should realize, however, that the opposite extreme is equally counterproductive. If the children become too rigid, never trying something unexpected and new, their problem solving skills can become too limited.

Effective problem solving seems to call for a happy medium that strikes a balance between using well-founded old strategies and trying new ground and territory. The individual who recognizes a situation in which an old problem-solving strategy would work best, and who can also recognize a situation in which a new untested strategy is necessary is halfway to success.

Solving Problems with Algorithms and Heuristics

For many problems there is a possible strategy available that will guarantee a correct solution. For example, think about math problems. Math lessons often consist of step-by-step procedures that can be used to solve the problems. If you apply the strategy without error, you are guaranteed to arrive at the correct solution to the problem. This approach is called using an  algorithm , a term that denotes the step-by-step procedure that guarantees a correct solution. Because algorithms are sometimes available and come with a guarantee, you might think that most people use them frequently. Unfortunately, however, they do not. As the experience of many students who have struggled through math classes can attest, algorithms can be extremely difficult to use, even when the problem solver knows which algorithm is supposed to work in solving the problem. In problems outside of math class, we often do not even know if an algorithm is available. It is probably fair to say, then, that algorithms are rarely used when people try to solve problems.

Because algorithms are so difficult to use, people often pass up the opportunity to guarantee a correct solution in favor of a strategy that is much easier to use and yields a reasonable chance of coming up with a correct solution. These strategies are called  problem solving heuristics . Similar to what you saw in section 6.2 with reasoning heuristics, a problem solving heuristic is a shortcut strategy that people use when trying to solve problems. It usually works pretty well, but does not guarantee a correct solution to the problem. For example, one problem solving heuristic might be “always move toward the goal” (so when trying to get to school when your regular route is blocked, you would always turn in the direction you think the school is). A heuristic that people might use when doing math homework is “use the same solution strategy that you just used for the previous problem.”

By the way, we hope these last two paragraphs feel familiar to you. They seem to parallel a distinction that you recently learned. Indeed, algorithms and problem-solving heuristics are another example of the distinction between Type 1 thinking and Type 2 thinking.

Although it is probably not worth describing a large number of specific heuristics, two observations about heuristics are worth mentioning. First, heuristics can be very general or they can be very specific, pertaining to a particular type of problem only. For example, “always move toward the goal” is a general strategy that you can apply to countless problem situations. On the other hand, “when you are lost without a functioning gps, pick the most expensive car you can see and follow it” is specific to the problem of being lost. Second, all heuristics are not equally useful. One heuristic that many students know is “when in doubt, choose c for a question on a multiple-choice exam.” This is a dreadful strategy because many instructors intentionally randomize the order of answer choices. Another test-taking heuristic, somewhat more useful, is “look for the answer to one question somewhere else on the exam.”

You really should pay attention to the application of heuristics to test taking. Imagine that while reviewing your answers for a multiple-choice exam before turning it in, you come across a question for which you originally thought the answer was c. Upon reflection, you now think that the answer might be b. Should you change the answer to b, or should you stick with your first impression? Most people will apply the heuristic strategy to “stick with your first impression.” What they do not realize, of course, is that this is a very poor strategy (Lilienfeld et al, 2009). Most of the errors on exams come on questions that were answered wrong originally and were not changed (so they remain wrong). There are many fewer errors where we change a correct answer to an incorrect answer. And, of course, sometimes we change an incorrect answer to a correct answer. In fact, research has shown that it is more common to change a wrong answer to a right answer than vice versa (Bruno, 2001).

The belief in this poor test-taking strategy (stick with your first impression) is based on the  confirmation bias   (Nickerson, 1998; Wason, 1960). You first saw the confirmation bias in Module 1, but because it is so important, we will repeat the information here. People have a bias, or tendency, to notice information that confirms what they already believe. Somebody at one time told you to stick with your first impression, so when you look at the results of an exam you have taken, you will tend to notice the cases that are consistent with that belief. That is, you will notice the cases in which you originally had an answer correct and changed it to the wrong answer. You tend not to notice the other two important (and more common) cases, changing an answer from wrong to right, and leaving a wrong answer unchanged.

Because heuristics by definition do not guarantee a correct solution to a problem, mistakes are bound to occur when we employ them. A poor choice of a specific heuristic will lead to an even higher likelihood of making an error.

algorithm :  a step-by-step procedure that guarantees a correct solution to a problem

problem solving heuristic :  a shortcut strategy that we use to solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

confirmation bias :  people’s tendency to notice information that confirms what they already believe

An Effective Problem-Solving Sequence

You may be left with a big question: If algorithms are hard to use and heuristics often don’t work, how am I supposed to solve problems? Robert Sternberg (1996), as part of his theory of what makes people successfully intelligent (Module 8) described a problem-solving sequence that has been shown to work rather well:

• Identify the existence of a problem.  In school, problem identification is often easy; problems that you encounter in math classes, for example, are conveniently labeled as problems for you. Outside of school, however, realizing that you have a problem is a key difficulty that you must get past in order to begin solving it. You must be very sensitive to the symptoms that indicate a problem.
• Define the problem.  Suppose you realize that you have been having many headaches recently. Very likely, you would identify this as a problem. If you define the problem as “headaches,” the solution would probably be to take aspirin or ibuprofen or some other anti-inflammatory medication. If the headaches keep returning, however, you have not really solved the problem—likely because you have mistaken a symptom for the problem itself. Instead, you must find the root cause of the headaches. Stress might be the real problem. For you to successfully solve many problems it may be necessary for you to overcome your fixations and represent the problems differently. One specific strategy that you might find useful is to try to define the problem from someone else’s perspective. How would your parents, spouse, significant other, doctor, etc. define the problem? Somewhere in these different perspectives may lurk the key definition that will allow you to find an easier and permanent solution.
• Formulate strategy.  Now it is time to begin planning exactly how the problem will be solved. Is there an algorithm or heuristic available for you to use? Remember, heuristics by their very nature guarantee that occasionally you will not be able to solve the problem. One point to keep in mind is that you should look for long-range solutions, which are more likely to address the root cause of a problem than short-range solutions.
• Represent and organize information.  Similar to the way that the problem itself can be defined, or represented in multiple ways, information within the problem is open to different interpretations. Suppose you are studying for a big exam. You have chapters from a textbook and from a supplemental reader, along with lecture notes that all need to be studied. How should you (represent and) organize these materials? Should you separate them by type of material (text versus reader versus lecture notes), or should you separate them by topic? To solve problems effectively, you must learn to find the most useful representation and organization of information.
• Allocate resources.  This is perhaps the simplest principle of the problem solving sequence, but it is extremely difficult for many people. First, you must decide whether time, money, skills, effort, goodwill, or some other resource would help to solve the problem Then, you must make the hard choice of deciding which resources to use, realizing that you cannot devote maximum resources to every problem. Very often, the solution to problem is simply to change how resources are allocated (for example, spending more time studying in order to improve grades).
• Monitor and evaluate solutions.  Pay attention to the solution strategy while you are applying it. If it is not working, you may be able to select another strategy. Another fact you should realize about problem solving is that it never does end. Solving one problem frequently brings up new ones. Good monitoring and evaluation of your problem solutions can help you to anticipate and get a jump on solving the inevitable new problems that will arise.

Please note that this as  an  effective problem-solving sequence, not  the  effective problem solving sequence. Just as you can become fixated and end up representing the problem incorrectly or trying an inefficient solution, you can become stuck applying the problem-solving sequence in an inflexible way. Clearly there are problem situations that can be solved without using these skills in this order.

Additionally, many real-world problems may require that you go back and redefine a problem several times as the situation changes (Sternberg et al. 2000). For example, consider the problem with Mary’s daughter one last time. At first, Mary did represent the problem as one of defiance. When her early strategy of pleading and threatening punishment was unsuccessful, Mary began to observe her daughter more carefully. She noticed that, indeed, her daughter’s attention would be drawn by an irresistible distraction or book. Fresh with a re-representation of the problem, she began a new solution strategy. She began to remind her daughter every few minutes to stay on task and remind her that if she is ready before it is time to leave, she may return to the book or other distracting object at that time. Fortunately, this strategy was successful, so Mary did not have to go back and redefine the problem again.

Pick one or two of the problems that you listed when you first started studying this section and try to work out the steps of Sternberg’s problem solving sequence for each one.

a mental representation of a category of things in the world

an assumption about the truth of something that is not stated. Inferences come from our prior knowledge and experience, and from logical reasoning

knowledge about one’s own cognitive processes; thinking about your thinking

individuals who are less competent tend to overestimate their abilities more than individuals who are more competent do

Thinking like a scientist in your everyday life for the purpose of drawing correct conclusions. It entails skepticism; an ability to identify biases, distortions, omissions, and assumptions; and excellent deductive and inductive reasoning, and problem solving skills.

a way of thinking in which you refrain from drawing a conclusion or changing your mind until good evidence has been provided

an inclination, tendency, leaning, or prejudice

a type of reasoning in which the conclusion is guaranteed to be true any time the statements leading up to it are true

a set of statements in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion

an argument for which true beginning statements guarantee that the conclusion is true

a type of reasoning in which we make judgments about likelihood from sets of evidence

an inductive argument in which the beginning statements lead to a conclusion that is probably true

fast, automatic, and emotional thinking

slow, effortful, and logical thinking

a shortcut strategy that we use to make judgments and solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

udging the frequency or likelihood of some event type according to how easily examples of the event can be called to mind (i.e., how available they are to memory)

judging the likelihood that something is a member of a category on the basis of how much it resembles a typical category member (i.e., how representative it is of the category)

a situation in which we are in an initial state, have a desired goal state, and there is a number of possible intermediate states (i.e., there is no obvious way to get from the initial to the goal state)

noticing, comprehending and forming a mental conception of a problem

when a problem solver gets stuck looking at a problem a particular way and cannot change his or her representation of it (or his or her intended solution strategy)

a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver cannot think of a new use for an object that already has a function

a specific type of fixation in which a problem solver gets stuck using the same solution strategy that has been successful in the past

a sudden realization of a solution to a problem

a step-by-step procedure that guarantees a correct solution to a problem

The tendency to notice and pay attention to information that confirms your prior beliefs and to ignore information that disconfirms them.

a shortcut strategy that we use to solve problems. Although they are easy to use, they do not guarantee correct judgments and solutions

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Ken Gray; Elizabeth Arnott-Hill; and Or'Shaundra Benson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

More From Forbes

The power of critical thinking: enhancing decision-making and problem-solving.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Dr. Ron Young, Founder and Board Chair of Trove, Inc . Ron specializes in psychological coaching & transition consulting.

Critical thinking is a fundamental cognitive process that enables individuals to objectively analyze, evaluate and interpret information to make informed decisions and solve complex problems. It involves employing reasoning and logic, questioning assumptions, recognizing biases and considering multiple perspectives. It requires self-monitored, self-directed, self-disciplined and self-corrective thinking. Critical thinking is essential in a world of information and diverse opinions. It helps us see things more clearly and avoid being misled or deceived.

Importance Of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is crucial in various aspects of life, including education, professional endeavors and personal decision-making. In academic settings, it allows students to comprehend and engage with complex subjects while discerning valid arguments from fallacious ones. In the workplace, critical thinking empowers individuals to analyze problems, devise creative solutions and make informed judgments. In everyday life, it helps individuals navigate an increasingly complex world by making sound choices and avoiding cognitive biases. It is our primary defense against misleading or "spun" information.

Benefits Of Critical Thinking

There are many benefits of critical thinking.

Enhanced Decision-Making

Critical thinking helps us trust our gut feelings and think independently. It enables individuals to make logical and well-reasoned decisions based on evidence and objective analysis. It encourages the consideration of all relevant factors and the evaluation of potential consequences, leading to more informed choices.

Effective Problem-Solving

Critical thinking facilitates the identification of underlying issues, the generation of innovative solutions and the evaluation of their viability. It encourages individuals to approach problems from different angles and consider various perspectives, increasing the likelihood of finding effective resolutions.

Reduction Of Cognitive Biases

Critical thinking supports self-reflection. It helps individuals recognize and challenge cognitive biases that hinder clear judgment. Individuals can better overcome confirmation bias, groupthink and the availability heuristic (judging the likelihood of an event based on recall of similar events) by understanding and questioning their assumptions and beliefs. It requires a commitment to overcoming the tendency to see the world from a narrow, self-centered perspective.

Enhanced Communication Skills

Practicing critical thinking fosters effective communication by enabling individuals to articulate and defend their ideas with logical reasoning and evidence. It encourages active listening, empathy and the ability to evaluate and respond to counterarguments, leading to more constructive and meaningful discussions.

More United Citizens

Using critical thinking enables citizens to see the whole picture by better protecting against biases and propaganda. It reduces partisanship and a “we/they” mentality.

Cultivating Critical Thinking

How can you cultivate critical thinking?

Be curious and inquisitive.

Foster a mindset of curiosity and an eagerness to explore and understand the world. Talk with people from different backgrounds, cultures, political affiliations or religions. Ask probing questions, seek new perspectives and engage in active learning. Learn from people who hold different viewpoints.

Develop analytical skills.

You can do this by learning to break down complex problems into manageable parts, recognize patterns and identify cause-and-effect relationships. Remember, not all opinions are equal, and some are flat-out wrong.

Evaluate information.

Develop skills to evaluate the credibility and reliability of information sources. Be aware of bias, assess evidence and differentiate between fact and opinion. Guard against "swallowing information whole" or believing that "If it's on the internet, it must be true."

Practice reflection.

Engage in reflective thinking by evaluating your thoughts, beliefs and assumptions. Consider alternative viewpoints, and be open to changing your perspective based on new information.

Embrace intellectual humility.

Be humble and aware that you could be wrong. Knowledge is an ongoing process; be open to admitting mistakes or gaps in understanding. Embrace a growth mindset that values continuous learning and improvement.

Develop your sense of belonging.

The third tier in Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a sense of belonging. One aspect of belonging is connection. All humans have this need. Without critical thinking, we are vulnerable to making our group's beliefs our own rather than evaluating which beliefs align with our values.

Align your view and your values.

Rather than defining yourself by a particular view, ask whether a different view aligns with your values. When we identify ourselves by the beliefs of our reference group (religious, political, etc.), we look for ways to justify our ideas. In doing so, we deny ourselves access to critical thinking.

Evidence Of Critical Thinking

When you practice critical thinking, it will be evident in several areas:

Evidence-Based Decision-Making

Rely on facts rather than emotions or personal biases. Follow five distinct steps, called the five A’s : ask, access, appraise, apply and audit. Gather relevant information, evaluate the evidence objectively and consider different perspectives before making decisions. Then reevaluate them as you learn new information.

Problem-Solving

Approach problems systematically by defining the issue, gathering relevant data, brainstorming potential solutions and evaluating feasibility. Engage in collaborative problem-solving to benefit from diverse perspectives. Open-mindedly consider alternative systems of thought. Recognize assumptions, implications and practical consequences, then adjust as needed.

Effective Communication

Solve complex problems by clearly and effectively communicating with others. Utilize critical thinking skills to articulate your thoughts clearly, listen actively and engage in respectful and constructive dialogue. Challenge ideas through logical arguments and evidence rather than resorting to personal attacks. Respecting people with different views does not mean you agree with their opinions. Evaluate, formulate and communicate questions with clarity and precision.

Continuous Learning

Apply critical thinking to ongoing personal and professional development. Seek opportunities for further education, engage in intellectual discourse and actively challenge your beliefs and assumptions.

Using Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a powerful cognitive tool that empowers individuals to navigate the complexities of the modern world. Critical thinking enhances decision-making, problem-solving and communication abilities by fostering logical reasoning, analytical skills and an open mindset. It enables individuals to overcome cognitive biases, evaluate information effectively and make informed choices. Cultivating and applying critical thinking skills benefits individuals and contributes to a more thoughtful and rational society. Embracing critical thinking is essential for fostering intellectual growth, facilitating progress and addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

The Difference Between Problem Solving and Decision Making

Decision making and problem solving are two related but different skill sets that apply to distinct business challenges. Sometimes leaders use decision-making techniques when they should be using a problem-solving approach, and vice versa. Knowing the difference between problem solving and decision making and understanding which skill to utilize in a particular situation will help you overcome challenges more quickly.

Seeking a Solution, or Choosing Between Options?

Both decision making and problem solving use information to inform a certain action, but that’s where the similarities end. Problem solving is the process of finding a solution to an ongoing, intermittent, or one-time failure of a process or system to perform at an acceptable level — or perform at all. It consists of identifying the causes through asking basic questions like “where,” “how,” “who,” and “why” to find the solution. Decision making involves choosing between different courses of action by evaluating each based on a set of criteria. It requires implementing an action plan based on what you have learned from problem solving.

A helpful way to illustrate the difference between problem solving and decision making is to consider the difference between a detective and a judge. As anyone who has seen an episode of Law & Order knows, a detective is a problem-solver. Their role is to determine who committed the crime based on evidence. A judge is a decision-maker. They weigh evidence, circumstances, and precedent to arrive at a judgment.

Understanding Differences in Processes and Outcomes

The process of decision making is clear: each option is evaluated based on a set of parameters or criteria. But the outcome is uncertain until a specific decision is made and time tells how well it worked — or didn’t work.

The process of problem solving is not immediately clear. Initially you might not understand the root of the problem, which makes it difficult to know where to start. For example, you can see that the conveyor belt in your warehouse isn’t working, but what made the motor controlling it stop working remains a mystery until you diagnose the problem, system by system. Once the problem is determined and addressed, the outcome is clear: the conveyor belt is again working.

In business, typical problems could be:

• Customer churn is increasing. Solution: expand product offering.
• The organization’s carbon footprint is too big and costly. Solution: implement green initiatives.
• A team is struggling to keep up with leads and organize customer data. Solution: implement a customer relationship management [CRM] system.

The associated complex decisions would be:

• Determining what new product to launch
• Selecting the green strategies that best balance cost and effectiveness
• Identifying which CRM solution is right for your organization

Problem solving and Decision Making: Best Practices

Whether problem solving or decision making, there are some factors you should consider to make the process as successful and efficient as possible. When problem solving, make sure to gather as many facts as you can, which will help make the solution more obvious. For example, app development companies will often take a “ test and learn ” approach to determine what customers want and need in an app. They’ll create a beta version, provide it free-of-charge to customers, and then analyze that data to develop a paid app that meets customer needs.

 When making decisions, be action-oriented. This means that you should be able to act on your decisions. Many of your decisions, especially those concerning complex issues, should involve other key employees and subject matter experts for the best results. Gather a team with diverse backgrounds, experiences and perspectives to help you consider a wide range of options.  Be open to feedback; even the most carefully made decision may not work out as expected when implemented. And lastly, you should adopt a decision-making framework that enables you to make the best decisions possible on a consistent basis, in a variety of scenarios.

• Ken Thompson

Share this:

5 thoughts on “the difference between problem solving and decision making”.

Hi Ken. Problem solving is a skill based on creativity and the ability to see things from many points of view. Decision making in particular requires the ability to manage emotions and a strong sense of responsibility. These are two very important skills in every area and in great demand at work. In the business environment, every good leader should be provided with them to perform at his best in his role.

Thank you for the insight. Agreed – creativity is key for problem solving. Thank you again for visiting the blog, and if you’re interested in learning more on the topic, you might find our Complex Decision Making for Leaders guide helpful. https://alignorg.com/guide/complex-decision-making-for-leaders/

I need help about the similarities of problem solving and decision making

We have an Executive Guide that might help you. You can find it here: https://alignorg.com/guide/complex-decision-making-for-leaders/ .

Every problem solving procedure is made of at least one process of divergent and convergent thinking. In the first part after determining the problem we should look for many many possible solutions in hand (which is one of the many many definitions of creativity). This is the divergent part of thinking (one to many). After having the options in hand, we encounter the second obstacle, i.e. looking for the best option from the many. This second part needs some convergent thinking and decision making skills (many to one). Then, I think the decision making in many cases is a part of problem solving procedure.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Decision-Making & Its Importance in Problem-Solving

Life is all about making decisions. From getting out of bed in the morning until you call it a day,…

Life is all about making decisions. From getting out of bed in the morning until you call it a day, we are constantly making choices and making decisions.

Whether it is your personal or professional life, you are often defined by your decisions.

Some of your decisions are mundane and almost automatic such as brushing your teeth and taking a bath, while some tasks require minor decision-making such as planning your daily schedule.

However, in a professional environment, decision-making skills can make all the difference as they can determine your growth and future career development. Depending on your role in an organization, your decisions can also impact other employees and even the overall image of the business.

When it comes to challenges and taking critical decisions, a lot of people shy away from taking responsibility. However, people with a decisive approach and a knack for taking well-measured and well-timed decisions are automatically regarded as leaders.

By honing your decision-making skills, you can create a strong bond with your colleagues and create a harmonious environment around you.

What is Decision-Making?

If we have to define decision-making in the context of the workplace, it is safe to say that management is nothing but a continuous process of decision-making. It is the responsibility of business managers to make operational decisions and ensure that their teams execute the tasks. In fact, the success of every manager depends largely on her decision-making skills.

The process of business planning depends on the art of decision-making. During the planning stage, managers need to make various decisions such as setting organizational goals. They decide on key products, marketing strategies, role assignments and timelines for every task.

In situations where the plans don’t deliver the desired outcome or are derailed due to external issues or lack of performance, it is the managers who need to bring things back on track by taking contingency decisions.

The charting of business plans is in effect great evidence of the importance of decision making. The care and research put in before taking a decision shape the impact it will make. Managers decide individual targets, team goals and various other rules and regulations related to the team’s functioning and conflict resolution, wherever needed.

Importance of decision-making

Iconic 20th-century management guru Peter F. Drucker said once, “Whatever a manager does, he does through making decisions.” That is exactly what we are talking about here.

It doesn’t matter whether you are working in a small company with less than 10 employees or in a large enterprise that has thousands of employees, things and situations always change. Over time, old practices, rules and personnel make space for new processes, especially in uncertain situations. However, these changed situations need people to make decisions.

The meaning of decision-making is strongly connected with management roles. Whether you create plans or organize discussions, give orders or advice, approve plans or reject them, every action involves decision-making. Thus, it can be considered an essential function of management.

If you work in a highly profitable enterprise, you will need to make a lot of critical decisions such as pricing a product, deciding which products to market, controlling production costs, advertising, capital investments, creating a policy for dividends and taking care of employee issues, among others.

Such decisions also need to be taken even by managers in government or social service enterprises where profit is not the criterion of success.

Decision-making and its importance in problem-solving

The importance of decision making lies in the way it helps you in choosing between various options. Before making a decision, there is a need to gather all available information and to weigh its pros and cons. It is crucial to focus on steps that can help in taking the right decisions.

There is a strong correlation between decision-making and problem-solving.

To further understand the importance of decision-making skills, let us take a look at the various ways in which decision-making can help solve problems:

Step-wise approach:.

Decision-making is not a random process. Before taking crucial decisions that can have a long-term impact on individual as well as organizational goals and performance, it is important to avoid various challenges.

Many times, we tend to get influenced by the majority opinion. Even if you feel that the group is not moving towards the right decision, you are scared of voicing your opinion due to the fear of isolation.

A systematic decision process ensures such erroneous situations are avoided.

Impact analysis:

By using the correct approaches and ethical decision-making processes, we can evaluate the impact of different choices. For instance, it is important to know whether a decision is long-term or temporary. We can assess the impact that a decision might have on people in the organization and whether they will feel happy about it or not.

Finding decision alternatives:

The decision-making process brings to fore skills such as probing and creativity. By using probing skills, you can gather more information about the various alternatives and creativity can help you in finding options that were previously not known.

Future forecasting:

The importance of decision making is amply seen in its ability to allow future forecasting. When we make a decision through a systematic process, we can calculate the likely impact of the decision on a business’s future growth.

Evaluating various options:

One of the characteristics of decision-making is that it is a fact-based process. Before making a decision, we gather all information about the various options and evaluate their feasibility and impact on the company’s present and future scenarios. This gives us the ability to make ethical decisions that are generally also the right decisions.

Risk assessment:

Strong decision-making skills are crucial in the risk assessment of decisions. They give us the ability to not only take the various options into account and weigh their pros and cons but also to assess the risk. By thoroughly evaluating all the options, market scenarios and past data, we can anticipate the chances of success and prepare for worst-case scenarios. Such a risk analysis comes handy for contingency planning as well as during any course corrections.

Impact on human resources:

Good decision-making can reap rich benefits for the organization. It can help foster a collaborative work environment and create clarity of communication among various stakeholders. By adopting group decision-making processes, it is possible to make different team members understand each other’s perspectives, strengths and weaknesses.

Leadership and emotional management:

Strong decision-making helps solve problems promptly and creates a leadership position for the decision-makers. Strong decisions should be impartial and devoid of any emotional influences that might make us overlook shortcomings. Such decision-making should also be transparent and logical.

These aspects of decision-making reduce stress and friction and increase cohesiveness as well as mutual understanding among team members and respect for the leaders.

Our daily life decisions give us opportunities to become better at what we do. Most of our decisions are made out of habit. However, by bringing our choices in the conscious domain, we can evaluate them, assess their impact and indulge in self-reflection. Such steps eventually lead to better decisions and outcomes.

Hence, it is very important to learn what is decision-making, and Harappa Education’s Making Decisions specially-curated course helps you learn the techniques of ethical decision-making. It has a section on the good decision process which will help you remove obstacles such as biases, peer pressure and lack of clarity that come in the path of good decision-making. Sign up for the course and start making smart decisions for success.

Explore our Harappa Diaries section to know more about the topic related to the Solve habit  –  Ethical Decision Making  in order to develop your  problem solving and decision making  skills.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Rational decision making

Satisficing and bounded rationality, intra-organizational political decision making.

• Incremental decision making and routines
• Appropriate decision making
• Temporal decision making
• Evaluating decision-making models

decision making

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• BCCampus Publishing - Introduction to Psychology I - Judgment and Decision-Making
• Psychology Today - Decision-Making
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Decision-Making Capacity
• History Learning Site - Decision making in government
• Business LibreTexts - Understanding Decision Making
• University of Minnesota Libraries - Understanding Decision Making
• Open Library Publishing Platform - The Importance of Hygiene and Grooming
• Verywell Mind - The psychology of decision-making strategies
• Table Of Contents

decision making , process and logic through which individuals arrive at a decision. Different models of decision making lead to dramatically different analyses and predictions. Decision-making theories range from objective rational decision making, which assumes that individuals will make the same decisions given the same information and preferences, to the more subjective logic of appropriateness , which assumes that specific institutional and organizational contexts matter in the decisions that individuals make.

(Read Steven Pinker’s Britannica entry on rationality.)

In modern Western societies the most common understanding of decision making is that it is rational—self-interested, purposeful, and efficient. During rational decision making, individuals will survey alternatives , evaluate consequences from each alternative , and finally do what they believe has the best consequences for themselves. The keys to a decision are the quality of information about alternatives and individual preferences. Modern economics is built on this understanding of how individuals make decisions.

Rational decision making becomes efficient when information is maximized and preferences are satisfied using the minimum of resources. In modern societies, rational decision making can occur in markets or firms. Both assume that individuals will act rationally, maximizing self-interest, but each works most efficiently under different conditions. Markets are most efficient when both buyers and sellers exist, when products or services are discrete so that the exchange can be one-time, when information about a product or service (such as its technology or means of evaluation) is broadly understood, and when there are enforced penalties for cheating.

Lacking these conditions, consensual exchange cannot occur, and rational individuals will try to cheat others to maximize their gain. In these cases a hierarchical organization is more efficient. The German sociologist Max Weber described how factories and bureaucracies became dramatically more efficient through growing technical expertise and, more importantly, a new division of labour , which divided work, specialized expertise, and coordinated individuals in a rule-based hierarchy . Bureaucracies decomposed complex technologies into manageable pieces, then allowed individuals to specialize and master a defined skill set. Using a clear hierarchy in which each position is controlled and supervised according to a stable and nonarbitrary system of rules, each individual’s work and expertise could be coordinated to achieve organizational goals, ranging from winning wars to making dresses.

In the 1940s, organization theorists began to challenge two assumptions necessary for rational decision making to occur, both of which were made obvious in cases where markets failed and hierarchies were necessary. First, information is never perfect, and individuals always make decisions based on imperfect information. Second, individuals do not evaluate all possible alternatives before making a choice. This behaviour is directly related to the costs of gathering information, because information becomes progressively more difficult and costly to gather. Instead of choosing the best alternative possible, individuals actually choose the first satisfactory alternative they find. The American social scientist Herbert Simon labeled this process “ satisficing” and concluded that human decision making could at best exhibit bounded rationality. Although objective rationality leads to only one possible rational conclusion, satisficing can lead to many rational conclusions, depending upon the information available and the imagination of the decision maker.

Simon argued that otherwise irrational individuals can behave rationally in the right context , particularly within a formal organization . Organizations can structure, or bound, individuals’ decisions by manipulating the premises on which decisions are made. Organizations can filter or emphasize information, bringing facts to an individual’s attention and identifying certain facts as important and legitimate . Individuals in hierarchies can take most of what happens around them for granted, concentrating only on a few key decisions. Hierarchies are efficient because they ensure that the correct information gets to the correct decision makers and that the correct person is making the decisions. At the same time, hierarchical organizations can socialize individuals to refrain from cheating by creating value decision premises that underlie decision makers’ judgments on what is right or good to do. These values, beliefs, or norms can come from family, from school, or from within the organization, but the organization can structure environments so that the most desirable value will be most salient at the time of decision.

Hierarchical organizations can structure factual and value decision premises so that the range of action becomes so narrow that only one alternative remains: the rational choice. Structuring decision premises can be done by directly managing information, selectively recruiting members, training members, and creating closed promotion patterns.

Organizations become rational in pursuing their missions through what Simon called ends-means chains. Leaders set the organizational mission, find a set of means for achieving the mission, take each of those means as a subgoal, and then find means for the subgoals and so on, until goals exist for every member of the organization. Leaders thus create a hierarchy of goals, in which each organizational level’s goals are an end relative to the levels below it and a means relative to the levels above it. Each individual’s work thus becomes a small part of accomplishing the organization’s mission.

Turning Simon’s bounded rationality on its head, other theorists argued that organizations are not purposeful cohesive actors but rather groups of competing coalitions made up of individuals with disparate interests. Individuals do not represent organizational interests; organizations represent individuals’ interests. Seen from this perspective, it is erroneous to ascribe a mission to an organization. Instead, organizations have goals set by a temporarily dominant coalition, which itself has no permanent goals and whose membership is subject to change. Members of the dominant coalition make decisions by bargaining, negotiating, and making side payments. Organizational decision making is the product of the game rather than a rational, goal-oriented process. Individual decision making is rational in the narrow sense that individuals pursue individual, self-interested goals, though this cannot always be accomplished directly. Individuals must pick their fights and use their influence carefully.

To understand and possibly predict what organizations will do, it is necessary to uncover and analyze the membership of the dominant coalition . The formal organizational chart is not a reliable map of organizational power. Instead, analysts must discover authority. Individuals gain authority by being able to resolve uncertainty. Individuals that can unravel technical problems, attract resources, or manage internal conflict demonstrate their usefulness to the rest of the organization and gain power. Working in concert with others who can perform similarly valuable functions, they become part of the dominant coalition. The size and composition of the dominant coalition depend on the types of environmental, technical, or coordinating uncertainty that must be resolved for the organization to survive. More technically complex, larger organizations in rapidly changing environments will tend to have larger dominant coalitions.

Advertisement

Decision Making: a Theoretical Review

• Regular Article
• Published: 15 November 2021
• Volume 56 , pages 609–629, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Matteo Morelli 1 ,
• Maria Casagrande   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4430-3367 2 &
• Giuseppe Forte 1 , 3  

8275 Accesses

18 Citations

Explore all metrics

Decision-making is a crucial skill that has a central role in everyday life and is necessary for adaptation to the environment and autonomy. It is the ability to choose between two or more options, and it has been studied through several theoretical approaches and by different disciplines. In this overview article, we contend a theoretical review regarding most theorizing and research on decision-making. Specifically, we focused on different levels of analyses, including different theoretical approaches and neuropsychological aspects. Moreover, common methodological measures adopted to study decision-making were reported. This theoretical review emphasizes multiple levels of analysis and aims to summarize evidence regarding this fundamental human process. Although several aspects of the field are reported, more features of decision-making process remain uncertain and need to be clarified. Further experimental studies are necessary for understanding this process better and for integrating and refining the existing theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Theoretical Perspectives on Decision Making

Decision-Making

Psychological Determinants of Decision Making

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

André, M., Borgquist, L., Foldevi, M., & Mölstad, S. (2002). Asking for ‘rules of thumb’: a way to discover tacit knowledge in general practice. Family Practice, 19 (6), 617–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.6.617

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50 (1–3), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science, 275 (5304), 1293–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000a). Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral cortex, 10 (3), 295–307.

Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000b). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123 (Pt 11), 2189–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2189

Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 336–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2004.06.010

Article   Google Scholar  

Blanchard, T. C., Strait, C. E., & Hayden, B. Y. (2015). Ramping ensemble activity in dorsal anterior cingulate neurons during persistent commitment to a decision. Journal of Neurophysiology, 114 (4), 2439–49. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00711.2015

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bohanec, M. (2009). Decision making: A computer-science and information-technology viewpoint. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 7 (2), 22–37

Google Scholar  

Brand, M., Fujiwara, E., Borsutzky, S., Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2005). Decision-Making deficits of korsakoff patients in a new gambling task with explicit rules: associations with executive functions. Neuropsychology, 19 (3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.19.3.267

Broche-Pérez, Y., Jiménez, H., & Omar-Martínez, E. (2016). Neural substrates of decision-making. Neurologia, 31 (5), 319–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2015.03.001

Byrnes, J. P. (2013). The nature and development of decision-making: A self-regulation model . Psychology Press

Clark, L., & Manes, F. (2004). Social and emotional decision-making following frontal lobe injury. Neurocase, 10 (5), 398–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554790490882799

Cummings, J. L. (1995). Anatomic and behavioral aspects of frontal-subcortical circuits a. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769 (1), 1–14

Dale, S. (2015). Heuristics and biases: The science of decision-making. Business Information Review, 32 (2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382115592536

Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 351 (1346), 1413–20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125

Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., & Narendran, S. (2013). Decision-making competence in everyday life: The roles of general cognitive styles, decision-making styles and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 55 (7), 783–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.012

Doya, K. (2008). Modulators of decision making. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (4), 410–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2077

Dunn, B. D., Dalgleish, T., & Lawrence, A. D. (2006). The somatic marker hypothesis: a critical evaluation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30 (2), 239–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.07.001

Elliott, R., Rees, G., & Dolan, R. J. (1999). Ventromedial prefrontal cortex mediates guessing. Neuropsychologia, 37 (4), 403–411

Ernst, M., Bolla, K., Mouratidis, M., Contoreggi, C., Matochik, J. A., Kurian, V., et al. (2002). Decision-making in a risk-taking task: a PET study. Neuropsychopharmacology, 26 (5), 682–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0893-133X(01)00414-6

Ernst, M., & Paulus, M. P. (2005). Neurobiology of decision making: a selective review from a neurocognitive and clinical perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 58 (8), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.06.004

Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Fellows, L. K. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: A review and conceptual framework. Behavioral & Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3 (3), 159–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304273251

Fellows, L. K., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex in decision making: judgment under uncertainty or judgment per se? Cerebral Cortex, 17 (11), 2669–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl176

Fehr, E., & Camerer, C. F. (2007). Social neuroeconomics: the neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (10), 419–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S

Fischhoff, B. (2010). Judgment and decision making. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (5), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.65

Forte, G., Favieri, F., & Casagrande, M. (2019). Heart rate variability and cognitive function: a systematic review. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 710

Forte, G., Morelli, M., & Casagrande, M. (2021). Heart rate variability and decision-making: autonomic responses in making decisions. Brain Sciences, 11 (2), 243

Forte, G., Favieri, F., Oliha, E. O., Marotta, A., & Casagrande, M. (2021). Anxiety and attentional processes: the role of resting heart rate variability. Brain Sciences, 11 (4), 480

Frith, C. D., & Singer, T. (2008). The role of social cognition in decision making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363 (1511), 3875–86. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0156

Galotti, K. M. (2002). Making decisions that matter: How people face important life choices . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346

Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (Eds.). (2001). Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox . MIT Press

Goel, V., Gold, B., Kapur, S., & Houle, S. (1998). Neuroanatomical correlates of human reasoning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10 (3), 293–302

Gold, J. I., & Shadlen, M. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038

Gottlieb, J. (2007). From thought to action: the parietal cortex as a bridge between perception, action, and cognition. Neuron, 53 (1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.12.009

Gozli, D. G. (2017). Behaviour versus performance: The veiled commitment of experimental psychology. Theory & Psychology, 27, 741–758

Gozli, D. (2019). Free Choice. Experimental Psychology and Human Agency . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20422-8_6

Group, T. M. A. D., Fawcett, T. W., Fallenstein, B., Higginson, A. D., Houston, A. I., Mallpress, D. E., & McNamara, J. M., …. (2014). The evolution of decision rules in complex environments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 18 (3), 153–161

Guess, C. (2004). Decision making in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture , 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1032

Gupta, R., Koscik, T. R., Bechara, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The amygdala and decision-making. Neuropsychologia, 49 (4), 760–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.029

Heilbronner, S. R., & Hayden, B. Y. (2016). Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex: a bottom-up view. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 39, 149–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-070815-013952

Hickson, L., & Khemka, I. (2014). The psychology of decision making. International review of research in developmental disabilities (Vol 47, pp. 185–229). Academic

Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Decision making under risk and uncertainty. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (5), 736–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.76

Kable, J. W., & Glimcher, P. W. (2009). The neurobiology of decision: consensus and controversy. Neuron , 63 (6),733–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.09.003

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58 (9), 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697

Kahneman, D. (2011). P ensieri lenti e veloci . Trad.it. a cura di Serra, L., Arnoldo Mondadori Editore

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–292

Kheramin, S., Body, S., Mobini, S., Ho, M. Y., Velázquez-Martinez, D. N., Bradshaw, C. M., et al. (2002). Effects of quinolinic acid-induced lesions of the orbital prefrontal cortex on inter-temporal choice: a quantitative analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 165 (1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-002-1228-6

Lee, V. K., & Harris, L. T. (2013). How social cognition can inform social decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 259. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2013.00259

Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making.  Annual Review of Psychology, 66 , 799–823

Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267

Mather, M. (2006). A review of decision-making processes: weighing the risks and benefits of aging. In Carstensen, L. L., & Hartel, C. R. (Eds.), & Committee on Aging Frontiers in Social Psychology, Personality, and Adult Developmental Psychology, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, When I’m 64 (pp. 145–173). National Academies Press

Mazzucchi, L. (2012). La riabilitazione neuropsicologica: Premesse teoriche e applicazioni cliniche (3rd ed.). EDRA

Mishra, S. (2014). Decision-making under risk: integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18 (3), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530517

Moreira, C. (2018). Unifying decision-making: a review on evolutionary theories on rationality and cognitive biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.12455

Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00448.x

O’Doherty, J. P., Buchanan, T. W., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Predictive neural coding of reward preference involves dissociable responses in human ventral midbrain and ventral striatum. Neuron, 49 (1), 157–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.11.014

Padoa-Schioppa, C., & Assad, J. A. (2008). The representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex is invariant for changes of menu. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2020

Palombo, D. J., Keane, M. M., & Verfaellie, M. (2015). How does the hippocampus shape decisions? Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 125, 93–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2015.08.005

Pardo-Vazquez, J. L., Padron, I., Fernandez-Rey, J., & Acuña, C. (2011). Decision-making in the ventral premotor cortex harbinger of action. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 5, 54. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2011.00054

Paulus, M. P., & Yu, A. J. (2012). Emotion and decision-making: affect-driven belief systems in anxiety and depression. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.07.009

Payne, J. W. (1973). Alternative approaches to decision making under risk: Moments versus risk dimensions. Psychological Bulletin, 80 (6), 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035260

Payne, J. W., Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker . Cambridge University Press

Phelps, E. A., Lempert, K. M., & Sokol-Hessner, P. (2014). Emotion and decision making: multiple modulatory neural circuits. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 37, 263–287

Pronin, E. (2007). Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11 (1), 37–43

Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Read Montague, P. (2008). Neuroeconomics: The neurobiology of value-based decision-making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9 (7), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2357

Reyna, V. F., & Lloyd, F. J. (2006). Physician decision making and cardiac risk: Effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12 (3), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.12.3.179

Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647

Robinson, D. N. (2016). Explanation and the “brain sciences". Theory & Psychology, 26 (3), 324–332

Robbins, T. W., James, M., Owen, A. M., Sahakian, B. J., McInnes, L., & Rabbitt, P. (1994). Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dementia, 5 (5), 266–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000106735

Rogers, R. D., Owen, A. M., Middleton, H. C., Williams, E. J., Pickard, J. D., Sahakian, B. J., et al. (1999). Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (20), 9029–9038. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-20-09029.1999

Rolls, E. T., & Baylis, L. L. (1994). Gustatory, olfactory, and visual convergence within the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 14 (9), 5437–52. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-09-05437.1994

Rolls, E. T., Critchley, H. D., Browning, A. S., Hernadi, I., & Lenard, L. (1999). Responses to the sensory properties of fat of neurons in the primate orbitofrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19 (4), 1532–40. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-04-01532.1999

Rosenbloom, M. H., Schmahmann, J. D., & Price, B. H. (2012). The functional neuroanatomy of decision-making. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 24 (3), 266–77. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11060139

Rushworth, M. F., & Behrens, T. E. (2008). Choice, uncertainty and value in prefrontal and cingulate cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 11 (4), 389–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn2066

Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience. Science, 318 (5850), 598–602. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142996

Serra, L., Bruschini, M., Ottaviani, C., Di Domenico, C., Fadda, L., Caltagirone, C., et al. (2019). Thalamocortical disconnection affects the somatic marker and social cognition: a case report. Neurocase, 25 (1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2019.1599025

Shahsavarani, A. M., & Abadi, E. A. M. (2015). The bases, principles, and methods of decision-making: A review of literature. International Journal of Medical Reviews, 2 (1), 214–225

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31 (4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00174-9

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

Staerklé, C. (2015). Political Psychology. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences , 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24079-8

Tremblay, S., Sharika, K. M., & Platt, M. L. (2017). Social decision-making and the brain: a comparative perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.007

Trepel, C., Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2005). Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research, 23 (1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.016

Van Der Pligt, J. (2015). Decision making, psychology of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2 (5), 917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24014-2

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior . Princeton University Press

Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (2000). Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 49, 32–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00005

Weller, J. A., Levin, I. P., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2009). The effects of insula damage on decision-making for risky gains and losses. Society for Neuroscience, 4 (4), 347–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910902934400

Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500484419

Yamada, H., Inokawa, H., Matsumoto, N., Ueda, Y., & Kimura, M. (2011). Neuronal basis for evaluating selected action in the primate striatum. European Journal of Neuroscience, 34 (3), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07771.x

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Roma “Sapienza”, Via dei Marsi. 78, 00185, Rome, Italy

Matteo Morelli & Giuseppe Forte

Dipartimento di Psicologia Dinamica, Clinica e Salute, Università di Roma “Sapienza”, Via degli Apuli, 1, 00185, Rome, Italy

Maria Casagrande

Body and Action Lab, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy

Giuseppe Forte

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maria Casagrande or Giuseppe Forte .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Morelli, M., Casagrande, M. & Forte, G. Decision Making: a Theoretical Review. Integr. psych. behav. 56 , 609–629 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 15 November 2021

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09669-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Decision making
• Neural correlates of decision making
• Decision-making tasks
• Decision-making theories
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Decision Making and Problem Solving Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Steps in Decision Making

Decisions can be made at an individual or organizational level. Individual decisions may affect the decision maker, the people who look up to them or the organization they serve. Similarly, organizational decisions may affect individuals or groups associated with the entity. In this respect, different factors affect the process of decision making.

Experiences, the level of information, the uniqueness of the situation and urgency of the matter are some of the factors that influence decision making (Dietrich 1). Having decided on whether the decision is individual or collective, the following guidelines are vital.

First, one must identify the problem that requires a decision. In the second step, one ought to generate possible solutions to the problem. The third step evaluates the consequences of each of the decisions that are to be taken. The fourth step involves choosing the measure you have decided to undertake about the problem. The fifth step is implementation. Implementation may take place at once or may be done in bits depending with the situation. The sixth step involves evaluation of the degree of success of the decision (Lunenburg 3; Anderson 9).

Making decision in the light of Ian Robertson, “Religion and Social Change”and Nicols Fox, “What are Our Real Values”

Determining whether affective domains of mankind determine culture and social change or whether social and cultural changes determine the affective domains is highly contested. In this regard, affective domains refer to the human beliefs, attitudes, social philosophies, ethics, norms and ideals. Karl Marx held the opinion that culture is made of material and nonmaterial constructs.

On the other hand, Max Weber agreed with the approach by Marx on material and nonmaterial constructs, but he held the opinion that the affective domains influenced social changes. According to him, the concept and principles of capitalism emanated from beliefs and other normative aspects (Robertson 10).

A further synthesis of the material and non material paradigms reveal that as much as the positions held by Max and Marx were based on correct constructs, they were relative and contextual. The growth of England as a capitalist over Scotland is a case at hand (Robertson 11).

The emerging modern economies in the East, especially China, complicate further, the view of Weber. Setting the ideals, believing in them and passing them on to the next generation is fast becoming an illusion. The ideals on the value of family, humanity and moral consciousness have become subject to media and celebrities (Fox 122).

Lilian Smith: When I was a child

The article is a classical analogy of racial discrimination in the south of the U.S. The parents talk of the goodness of God, of the virtue of their society, and of the value of life while at the same time they segregate against the people with the colored skin. As a little child, the author wonders why the family treated Janie without regard although she had showed good manners (Smith 36-37).

The white skinned society in the south denies children a chance to demonstrate hospitality, goodness and kindness to their colored skin friends. The only frame of reference in determining civility was in keeping slaves and disregarding them.

Plato: the parable of the cave

The article is about prisoners who perceive the objects of the world in form of shadows. One of the prisoners is freed and told to give his view of the world; the impact of the light hurts him. The cave has conditioned the prisoners into understanding the shadows as the true and real objects (Plato 80). The article is an insight on enlightenment. It advises one on viewing a situation in a new paradigm that is held as the true and real. It is relativistic.

Henry Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

The article systemizes the tenets of social organization. It observes the existence of individual human beings, property and the laws that govern their interaction, appropriation and increase. The society in collective terms, contract a few of its own to oversee the social order. In times of inefficiency and misappropriation of the stewardship of power, the citizens opt for disorder. They become disgruntled by oppression, slavery and short-change their trust in the elected few to oversee social order.

This is the beginning of revolutions (Thoreau 194). The article’s advice for the current situation is that it is not absolute for the collective responsibility to be undertaken directly. Social order is already contracted to the government by the way of election. Furthermore, one continues to contribute to the stewardship of the law and order by way of taxation and service to the government.

E.E Cummings: LIV

The poem is a presentation of the concept of reductionism. Although we are independent as individuals, many factors unite us. The poem states the importance and the reality of unity. The imageries given on tree, leaf, and on the growth of buds is an indication of the society comprised of many components yet united by the virtue of love and co-existence.

A show of love explains who we are (Cummings 181). The poem advises the situation on the value of compassion. The poem completely ignored the personal dreams, economic value and responsibility of provision on the east coast.

Martin Luther king, Jr, “Letters from a Birmingham Jail”

The letter speaks of the issues on racism in the south of the United States. As indicated, the racial discrimination anywhere had effect everywhere. Luther wondered what response he could give to a five year old if they wanted to know causes of segregation. Children understand that all mankind deserves good treatment. The section of the letter that touches on children is especially critical in deciding whether to go to Boston or remain in Iowa with the family (King 77-100).

Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus

The myth is anchored on the condemnation of Sisyphus to roll the rock up the cliff and just before it topples over to the other side, it falls back to the foot of the cliff and he has to repeat. The punishment is given after the accusation of his role when Jupiter stole Aegina who was the daughter to Aesopus (Camus 237).

The myth is a demonstration of the power of divine creatures over the beings on the earth. Sisyphus suffers from labor in futility. The mythology informs the decision to remain in Iowa or leave to the east coast. The decision that violates the will of the divine power comes with adverse consequences.

Auden: the unknown Citizen

The Bureau of Statistics considered the unknown citizen as one with good conduct. He was on the good side of demography according to the Eugenist, he had modest interaction with colleagues, and he was in good health. He also had a reasonable material fortune of radio, automobile, fridge and phonograph. He was well informed from the media and his level of education was apt. (Auden 98).

The unknown citizen is the ideal representation of the decisions that ought to be made in the described situation. He can meet the expectation of serving his community and undertake his employer’s assignment. The decision should strive to meet the ideals posed in the case of the unknown citizen.

Precepts from the living quotations

The message in the quotations is derived from the scripture. It emphasizes on service to humanity through the lessons drawn from the stories of the Biblical personalities. The quotations reveal the benefits of working together as a community and treating each other with kindness (Bacote 155). The message in the nuggets informs the process of making decision in the present scenario by a historical and transcendent understanding.

The decision must strive to meet the ideals observed by the unknown citizen meaning it must be conscious of the family. The decision should also note that the current is an act of nature. The emerging obligations need character, strong will and decisiveness. The economic and social family obligations must be met despite the desire to offer a helping hand in the aftermath of the disaster (Adair 10 & 11).

Decide to be in Boston as your family remains in Iowa to assist the victims then they join you later. They ought to accept leaving old friends is hard but it also gives them opportunity to visit new places. Significant decisions involve breaking with the past (Anderson 11; Ehrgott, Figueira & Greco 88).

Works Cited

Adair, John. Decision making and problem solving . London: Kogan Page Limited, 2007. Print.

Anderson, Barry F. The Three Secrets of Wise Decision Making. Portland: Single Reef Press, 2002. Print.

Auden, Hugh Wystan. The Unknown Citizen. Sunnyvale: Shmoop University Incorporated, 1940. Print.

Bocote, Vicente. Precepts for living2007-2008: Umi Annual Sunday school Lesson Commentary . Illinois: Urban Ministries, Inc., 2007. Print.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus . Washington: Penguin Books Limited, 2013.Print.

Cummings, E E. 100 Selected Poems. New York: Grove press, 1954. Print.

Dietrich, Cindy “Decision Making: Factors that Influence Decision Making, Heuristics Used, and Decision outcomes.” The International Student Journal 2.02 (2010): 1-3. Print.

Ehrgott, Matthias, Figueira, Jose, & Greco Galvatore. Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis . New York: Springer, 2010. Print.

Fox, Nicols. Against the Machine: The Hidden Luddite Tradition in Literature, Art, and Individual lives. Washington: Island Press, 2002. Print.

Lunenburg, Fred “The Decision Making Process.” The forum of educational administration and supervision journal 27.4 (2010): 1-12. Print.

King, Martin Luther “Letter from Birmingham Jail” why we can’t wait. Martin Luther King, Jr., papers project (1963):77-100. Print.

Plato. The allegory of the Cave. London: P & L Publication, 2010. Print.

Robertson, Ian. Sociology . New York: Worth Publishers, 1981. Print.

Smith, Lilian. Killers of the Dream . New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1949. Print.

Thoreau, David Henry. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Washington: Arc Manor, 2007. Print.

• Locke’s Natural Law of Property
• Comparison of quality philosophies
• Resistance in Bilal: A New Breed of Hero and in the Myth of Sisyphus
• Investigation of One of the States of the United States. -Iowa
• Post-College Existence: Absurd or Ambiguous?
• Consciousness as a Brain Process
• The Elephant in the Room: Existentialism and the Denial of Death
• Philosophy of Existentialism
• Berkeley’s Argument on Materialism Analysis
• Thomas Kuhn: Pre-Science and Normal Science Periods
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 17). Decision Making and Problem Solving. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/

"Decision Making and Problem Solving." IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Decision Making and Problem Solving'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Decision Making and Problem Solving." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

1. IvyPanda . "Decision Making and Problem Solving." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Decision Making and Problem Solving." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/making-decision/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Problem Solving and Decision Making: Consideration of Individual Differences Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator William G. Huitt

Citation: Huitt, W. (1992). Problem solving and decision making: Consideration of individual differences using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Psychological Type, 24 , 33-44. Retrieved from [date] http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/prbsmbti.html

Return to: | Readings in Educational Psychology | Educational Psychology Interactive |

    Abstract

Improving individuals' and groups' abilities to solve problems and make decisions is recognized as an important issue in education, industry, and government. Recent research has identified a prescriptive model of problem solving, although there is less agreement as to appropriate techniques. Separate research on personality and cognitive styles has identified important individual differences in how people approach and solve problems and make decisions. This paper relates a model of the problem-solving process to Jung's theory of personality types (as measured by the MBTI) and identifies specific techniques to support individual differences .

The recent transition to the information age has focused attention on the processes of problem solving and decision making and their improvement (e.g., Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985; Stice, 1987; Whimbey & Lochhead, 1982). In fact, Gagne (1974, 1984) considers the strategies used in these processes to be a primary outcome of modern education. Although there is increasing agreement regarding the prescriptive steps to be used in problem solving, there is less consensus on specific techniques to be employed at each step in the problem-solving/decision-making process.

There is concurrent and parallel research on personality and cognitive styles that describes individuals' preferred patterns for approaching problems and decisions and their utilization of specific skills required by these processes (e.g., encoding, storage, retrieval, etc.). Researchers have studied the relationship between personality characteristics and problem-solving strategies (e.g., Heppner, Neal, & Larson, 1984; Hopper & Kirschenbaum, 1985; Myers, 1980), with Jung's (1971) theory on psychological type serving as the basis for much of this work, especially as measured by the MBTI (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

One conclusion that may be drawn from these investigations is that individual differences in problem solving and decision making must be considered to adequately understand the dynamics of these processes (Stice, 1987). Attention must be paid to both the problem-solving process and the specific techniques associated with important personal characteristics. That is, individuals and organizations must have a problem-solving process as well as specific techniques congruent with individual styles if they are to capitalize on these areas of current research.

McCaulley (1987) attempted to do this by first focusing on individual differences in personality and then by presenting four steps for problem solving based on Jung's (1971) four mental processes (sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling). Another strategy would be to consider first the problem-solving process and then to integrate individual preferences or patterns within this process. This second strategy is the perspective of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to relate a model of the problem-solving process to a theory of personality type and temperaments in order to facilitate problem solving by focusing on important individual differences. Specific techniques that can be used in the problem-solving/decision-making process to take advantage of these differences are also identified. The integrated process is applicable to a variety of individual and group situations.

Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Process

Problem solving is a process in which we perceive and resolve a gap between a present situation and a desired goal, with the path to the goal blocked by known or unknown obstacles. In general, the situation is one not previously encountered, or where at least a specific solution from past experiences is not known. In contrast, decision making is a selection process where one of two or more possible solutions is chosen to reach a desired goal. The steps in both problem solving and decision making are quite similar. In fact, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Most models of problem solving and decision making include at least four phases (e.g., Bransford & Stein, 1984; Dewey, 1933; Polya, 1971): 1) an Input phase in which a problem is perceived and an attempt is made to understand the situation or problem; 2) a Processing phase in which alternatives are generated and evaluated and a solution is selected; 3) an Output phase which includes planning for and implementing the solution; and 4) a Review phase in which the solution is evaluated and modifications are made, if necessary. Most researchers describe the problem-solving/decision-making process as beginning with the perception of a gap and ending with the implementation and evaluation of a solution to fill that gap.

Each phase of the process includes specific steps to be completed before moving to the next phase. These steps will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper.

Consideration of Individual Differences

Although there are a variety of ways to consider individual differences relative to problem solving and decision making, this paper will focus on personality type and temperament as measured by the MBTI.

Personality Type and Problem Solving

Researchers have investigated the relationship of Jung's theory of individuals' preferences and their approach to problem solving and decision making (e.g., Lawrence, 1982, 1984; McCaulley, 1987; Myers & McCaulley, 1985). The following is a summary of their findings.

When solving problems, individuals preferring introversion will want to take time to think and clarify their ideas before they begin talking, while those preferring extraversion will want to talk through their ideas in order to clarify them. In addition, Is will more likely be concerned with their own understanding of important concepts and ideas, while Es will continually seek feedback from the environment about the viability of their ideas.

Sensing individuals will be more likely to pay attention to facts, details, and reality. They will also tend to select standard solutions that have worked in the past. Persons with intuition preferences, on the other hand, will more likely attend to the meaningfulness of the facts, the relationships among the facts, and the possibilities of future events that can be imagined from these facts. They will exhibit a tendency to develop new, original solutions rather than to use what has worked previously.

Individuals with a thinking preference will tend to use logic and analysis during problem solving. They are also likely to value objectivity and to be impersonal in drawing conclusions. They will want solutions to make sense in terms of the facts, models, and/or principles under consideration. By contrast, individuals with a feeling preference are more likely to consider values and feelings in the problem-solving process. They will tend to be subjective in their decision making and to consider how their decisions could affect other people.

The final dimension to be considered describes an individual's preference for either judging (using T or F) or perceiving (using S or N). Js are more likely to prefer structure and organization and will want the problem-solving process to demonstrate closure. Ps are more likely to prefer flexibility and adaptability. They will be more concerned that the problem-solving process considers a variety of techniques and provides for unforeseen change.

As a demonstration of how personality type can affect problem solving, McCaulley (1987) describes the problem-solving characteristics of two of the 16 MBTI types, ISTJ and ENFP.

In problem solving, ISTJ will want a clear idea of the problem (I) and attack it by looking for the facts (S) and by relying on a logical, impersonal (T), step-by-step approach in reaching conclusions. In contrast, ENFP will throw out all sorts of possibilities (N), seeking feedback from the environment to clarify the problem (E). Brainstorming (NP) will be enjoyed. The human aspects of the problem (F) are likely to be emphasized over impersonal, technical issues (T). To the ISTJ, the ENFP approach is likely to seem irrational or scattered. To the ENFP, the ISTJ approach is likely to seem slow and unimaginative. (pp. 43-44)

Temperament

Kiersey and Bates (1978) provide another view of Jung's theory. These authors focus on four temperaments similar in many ways to those described in ancient times by Hippocrates and in the early 20th century by psychologists such as Adickes (1907), Kretschmer (1921/1925), and Spranger (1928). These temperaments can be useful in discussing individual differences related to problem solving and decision making since they are associated with fundamental differences in orientation to problem solving and goals to be addressed.

The first dimension considered in temperament is the one related to differences in the perceptual processes used in gathering information--the S-N dimension. Kiersey and Bates (1978) argue that S-N is the most fundamental dimension since all other dimensions depend on the type of information most preferred. The concrete-abstract dimension in Kolb's (1984) theory of learning style supports this proposal.

For individuals with a sensing preference, the second dimension to be considered (J-P) relates to the utilization of data--should they be organized and structured or should additional data be gathered. For Ns, the second dimension (T-F) relates to the evaluation of data by logic and reason or by values and impact on people. Therefore, the four temperaments are SP, SJ, NT, and NF.

The SP temperament is oriented to reality in a playful and adaptable manner. The goal of the SP is action, and the SP's time reference is the present. The SP wants to take some immediate action using an iterative approach to achieve the end result or goal. The SP's definition of the problem is likely to change in the process of solving it. Individuals of this temperament are not likely bound by original perceptions and want the freedom to change their perceptions based on new information. Sometimes lack of a coherent plan of action diverts the SP from the original problem.

An individual of the SJ temperament is oriented to reality in an organized manner, strives to be socially useful, and performs traditional duties within a structured framework. SJs are detail conscious, are able to anticipate outcomes, and prefer evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. SJs often need help in categorizing details into meaningful patterns and generating creative, non-standard alternatives.

The NT temperament approaches problem solving scientifically and is future oriented. NTs are likely to be interested in the laws or principles governing a situation. The prescriptive problem-solving/decision-making process described by researchers is oriented to the NT temperament. NTs tend to overlook important facts and details and need help considering the impact of solutions on people.

The NF temperament seeks self-discovery, which appears to be a circular goal, and is oriented to the future in terms of human possibilities. When engaged in the problem-solving process, NFs may rely on internal alternatives often interpreted as not grounded in reality or logic. They are often concerned with the integrity of solutions and strive to enhance personal development. NFs need help attending to details and focusing on realistic, formulated solutions.

The validity of the problem-solving process will be seen from different perspectives by each temperament. SPs will value their own experiences; SJs will value tradition and authority; NTs will value logic and reason; NFs will value insight and inspiration. The challenge for using the problem-solving process described by experts is to utilize techniques and procedures that acknowledge individual differences and provide an opportunity for alternative perspectives to be considered.

Problem-Solving Techniques

It is not enough to describe a problem-solving process and to describe how individuals differ in their approach to or use of it. It is also necessary to identify specific techniques of attending to individual differences. Fortunately, a variety of problem-solving techniques have been identified to accommodate individual preferences. Some of these techniques are oriented more to NT and SJ individuals who tend to be more linear and serial, more structured, more rational and analytical, and more goal-oriented in their approach to problem solving. Other techniques are more suited to NF and SP individuals who demonstrate a preference for an approach that is more holistic and parallel, more emotional and intuitive, more creative, more visual, and more tactual/kinesthetic. It is important that techniques from both categories be selected and used in the problem-solving process. Duemler and Mayer (1988) found that when students used exclusively either reflection or inspiration during problem solving, they tended to be less successful than if they used a moderate amount of both processes. This section offers some examples of both types of techniques; the next section will demonstrate how to integrate them into the problem-solving process to accommodate individual differences.

The following techniques focus more on logic and critical thinking, especially within the context of applying the scientific approach:

A. Analysis--the identification of the components of a situation and consideration of the relationships among the parts (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956);

B. Backwards planning--a goal selection process where mid-range and short-term conditions necessary to obtain the goal are identified (Case & Bereiter, 1984; Gagne, 1977; Skinner, 1954); this technique is related to the more general technique of means-ends analysis described by Newell and Simon (1972);

C. Categorizing/classifying--the process of identifying and selecting rules to group objects, events, ideas, people, etc. (Feuerstein, Rand, Hoffman, & Miller, 1980; Sternberg, 1988);

D. Challenging assumptions--the direct confrontation of ideas, opinions, or attitudes that have previously been taken for granted (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Brookfield, 1987);

E. Evaluating/judging--comparison to a standard and making a qualitative or quantitative judgment of value or worth (Bloom et al., 1956);

F. Inductive/deductive reasoning--the systematic and logical development of rules or concepts from specific instances or the identification of cases based on a general principle or proposition using the generalization and inference (e.g., Devine, 1981; Pelligrino, 1985; Sternberg, 1988);

G. Thinking aloud--the process of verbalizing about a problem and its solution while a partner listens in detail for errors in thinking or understanding (Whimby & Lochhead, 1982);

H. Network analysis--a systems approach to project planning and mangement where relationships among activities, events, resources, and timelines are developed and charted. Specific examples include Program Evaluation and Review Technique and Critical Path Method (Awani, 1983; Handy & Hussain, 1969);

I. Plus-Minus-Interesting (PMI)--considering the positive, negative, and interesting or thought-provoking aspects of an idea or alternative using a balance sheet grid where plus and minus refer to criteria identified in the second step of the problem-solving process (de Bono, 1976; Janis & Mann, 1977);

J. Task analysis--the consideration of skills and knowledge required to learn or perform a specific task (Gagne, 1977; Gardner, 1985).

The following problem-solving techniques focus more on creative, lateral, or divergent thinking (e.g., de Bono, 1983; Prince, 1970; Wonder & Donovan, 1984):

A. Brainstorming--attempting to spontaneously generate as many ideas on a subject as possible; ideas are not critiqued during the brainstorming process; participants are encouraged to form new ideas from ideas already stated (Brookfield, 1987; Osborn, 1963);

B. Imaging/visualization--producing mental pictures of the total problem or specific parts of the problem (Lazarus, 1978; McKim, 1980; Wonder & Donovan, 1984);

C. Incubation--putting aside the problem and doing something else to allow the mind to unconsciously consider the problem (Frederiksen, 1984; Osborn, 1963);

D. Outcome psychodrama--enacting a scenario of alternatives or solutions through role playing (Janis & Mann, 1977);

E. Outrageous provocation--making a statement that is known to be absolutely incorrect (e.g., the brain is made of charcoal) and then considering it; used as a bridge to a new idea (Beinstock, 1984); also called "insideouts" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);

F. Overload--considering a large number of facts and details until the logic part of the brain becomes overwhelmed and begins looking for patterns (Wonder & Donovan, 1984); can also be generated by immersion in aesthetic experiences (Brookfield, 1987), sensitivity training (Lakin, 1972), or similar experiences;

G. Random word technique--selecting a word randomly from the dictionary and juxtaposing it with problem statement, then brainstorming about possible relationships (Beinstock, 1984);

H. Relaxation--systematically relaxing all muscles while repeating a personally meaningful focus word or phrase (Benson, 1987); a specific example of the more general technique called "suspenders" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);

I. Synthesizing--combining parts or elements into a new and original pattern Bloom et al., 1956; Sternberg, 1988);

J. Taking another's perspective--deliberately taking another person's point of view (de Bono, 1976; referred to as "be someone else" by Wonder and Donovan (1984);

K. Values clarification--using techniques such as role-playing, simulations, self-analysis exercises, and structured controversy to gain a greater understanding of attitudes and beliefs that individuals hold important (Fraenkel, 1977; Johnson & Johnson, 1988; Kirschenbaum, 1977).

Integrating Techniques into the Problem-Solving Process

The problem-solving techniques discussed above are most powerful when combined to activate both the logical/rational and intuitive/creative parts of the brain (Wonder & Donovan, 1984). The following narrative will provide an example of how these techniques can be used at specific points in the problem-solving process to address important individual differences. The techniques will be presented within the context of a group problem-solving situation but are equally applicable to an individual situation. The terms in parentheses refer to personality dimensions to which the technique would appeal.

The Input Phase

The goal of the Input phase is to gain a clearer understanding of the problem or situation. The first step is to identify the problem(s) and state it(them) clearly and concisely. Identifying the problem means describing as precisely as possible the gap between one's perception of present circumstances and what one would like to happen. Problem identification is vital to communicate to one's self and others the focus of the problem-solving/decision-making process. Arnold (1978) identified four types of gaps: 1) something is wrong and needs to be corrected; 2) something is threatening and needs to be prevented; 3) something is inviting and needs to be accepted; and 4) something is missing and needs to be provided. Tunnel vision (stating the problem too narrowly) represents the major difficulty in problem identification as it leads to artificially restricting the search for alternatives.

Brainstorming is an excellent technique to begin the problem-solving process. Individually, participants quickly write possible solutions (introversion, perception), share these alternatives as a group in a non-judgmental fashion, and continue to brainstorm (extraversion, perception). Participants then classify, categorize, and prioritize problems, forming a hierarchy of the most important to the least important (intuition, thinking).

The second step of the Input phase is to state the criteria that will be used to evaluate possible alternatives to the problem as well as the effectiveness of selected solutions. During this step it is important to state any identified boundaries of acceptable alternatives, important values or feelings to be considered, or results that should be avoided. In addition, criteria should be categorized as either essential for a successful solution or merely desired.

Brainstorming can also be used during this second step. Participants quickly write possible criteria for use in evaluating alternatives (introversion, perception). These factors generally fall into the following categories: 1) important personal values, attitudes, and feelings to be considered (sensing, feeling); 2) important values, attitudes, and feelings to be considered in context of the work group, organization, community, society, etc. (extraversion, intuition, feeling); 3) practical factors that relate to how an alternative should work (sensing, thinking); and 4) factors that logically flow from the statement of the problem, relevant facts, or how the solution should fit into the larger context (intuition, thinking). Values clarification techniques can be very useful in generating criteria related to values, feelings, and attitudes. Role-playing and simulations are especially appreciated by SPs and SJs, who generally take a more practical approach to problem solving. Self-analysis exercises and structured controversy are more likely to appeal to NFs and NTs, who focus on principles and abstractions. In addition, the use of both deductive and inductive reasoning can be important in generating criteria. For example, logically generating criteria from the problem statement would use deductive reasoning, whereas combining several different values or feelings to form criteria would use inductive reasoning.

After criteria are generated they are then shared in a non-judgmental manner using procedures suggested in values clarification strategies (extraversion, perception). Important criteria are placed into different categories, and a preliminary selection is made. Selected criteria are then evaluated in terms of their reasonableness given the problem statement (intuition, thinking, judging). Of course, these criteria can, and probably will, be modified based on important facts identified in the next step.

The third step is to gather information or facts relevant to solving the problem or making a decision. This step is critical for understanding the initial conditions and for further clarification of the perceived gap. Most researchers believe that the quality of facts is more important than the quantity. In fact, Beinstock (1984) noted that collecting too much information can actually confuse the situation rather than clarify it.

The brainstorming technique could again be used in this step. As done previously, participants quickly write those facts they believe to be important (introversion, sensing) and then share them in a non-judgmental fashion (extraversion, sensing). These facts are classified and categorized, and relationships and meaningfulness are stablished (intuition, thinking). The techniques of imaging and overload can be used to establish patterns and relationships among the facts. The facts are analyzed in terms of the problem statement and criteria, and non-pertinent facts are eliminated (thinking, judging). The remaining facts and associated patterns are then prioritized and additional facts collected as necessary (thinking, perceiving).

The Processing Phase

In the Processing phase the task is to develop, evaluate, and select alternatives and solutions that can solve the problem. The first step in this phase is to develop alternatives or possible solutions. Most researchers focus on the need to create alternatives over the entire range of acceptable options as identified in the previous phase (Schnelle, 1967). This generation should be free, open, and unconcerned about feasibility. Enough time should be spent on this activity to ensure that non-standard and creative alternatives are generated.

Again, brainstorming is a technique that can be used first. Participants quickly write alternatives using the rules of brainstorming (introversion, perception), then share the results in a non-judgmental fashion and develop additional alternatives (extraversion, perception). A number of the techniques mentioned above such as challenging assumptions, imaging, outcome psychodrama, outrageous provocation, the random word technique, and taking another's perspective can be used at this point to generate more creative alternatives. Those alternatives obviously unworthy of further consideration are eliminated (intuition, judging). It is possible to categorize or classify alternatives and consider them as a group, but care should be taken not to make the categories too complex or unwieldy. If the person or group is dissatisfied with the quantity or quality of the alternatives under consideration, a brief use of the progressive relaxation technique may be beneficial as well as the application of another, previously unused, creative technique. If dissatisfaction still remains, putting aside the problem (incubation) may be helpful.

The next step is to evaluate the generated alternatives vis-a-vis the stated criteria. Advantages, disadvantages, and interesting aspects for each alternative (using the PMI technique) are written individually (introversion, sensing, judging), then shared and discussed as a group (extroversion, sensing, judging). Most researchers advocate written evaluation, if only in the form of personal notes. After discarding alternatives that are clearly outside the bounds of the previously stated criteria, both advantages and disadvantages should be considered in more detail. An analysis of relationships among alternatives should be completed (i.e., is an advantage of one a disadvantage for another) and consideration should be given to the relative importance of advantages and disadvantages. Only those alternatives the majority considers relevant and correct are considered further.

The third step of the processing phase is to develop a solution that will successfully solve the problem. For relatively simple problems, one alternative may be obviously superior. However, in complex situations several alternatives may likely be combined to form a more effective solution (simply selecting one alternative will appeal to sensing, judging; combining one or more alternatives to make a new alternative will appeal to intuition, perceiving). A major advantage of this process is that if previous steps have been done well then choosing a solution is less complicated (Simon, 1969).

Before leaving this phase it is important to diagnose possible problems with the solution and implications of these problems (what could go wrong--sensing, judging; implications--intuition, perceiving). When developing a solution it is important to consider the worst that can happen if the solution is implemented. In addition, the solution should be evaluated in terms of overall "feelings." That is, does the alternative match important values as previously stated (feeling).

The Output Phase

During the Output phase a plan is developed and the solution actually implemented. The plan must be sufficiently detailed to allow for successful implementation, and methods of evaluation must be considered and developed. When developing a plan, the major phases of implementation are first considered (intuition), and then steps necessary for each phase are generated. It is often helpful to construct a timeline and make a diagram of the most important steps in the implementation using a technique such as network analysis (sensing, judging). Backwards planning and task analysis are also useful techniques at this point. The plan is then implemented as carefully and as completely as possible, following the steps as they have been developed and making minor modifications as appropriate (sensing, judging).

The Review Phase

The next step, evaluating implementation of the solution, should be an ongoing process. Some determination as to completeness of implementation needs to be considered prior to evaluating effectiveness. This step is often omitted and is one reason why the problem-solving/decision-making process sometimes fails: the solution that has been selected is simply not implemented effectively. However, if the solution is not implemented then evaluation of effectiveness is not likely to be valid.

The second step of this phase is evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. It is particularly important to evaluate outcomes in light of the problem statement generated at the beginning of the process. Affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes should be considered, especially if they have been identified as important criteria. The solution should be judged as to its efficiency (thinking, judging), its impact on the people involved (feeling, judging), and the extent to which it is valued by the participants (feeling, judging).

The final step in the process is modifying the solution in ways suggested by the evaluation process. Evaluation of the solution implementation and outcomes generally presents additional problems to be considered and addressed. Issues identified in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness of implementation should be addressed.

Table 1 lists important aspects of personality when considering attention to individual differences during problem solving and decision making. Each aspect of personality has a different orientation to problem solving, different criteria for judging the effectiveness of the process and selected alternatives, as well as different preferred techniques and strengths. These differences must be considered by both individuals and groups if effective solutions are to be generated and implemented.

Table 1. Aspects of personality important for problem solving and decision making

Considering Temperament

If the majority of the group is composed of a single temperament, the basic process can be modified to take advantage of the dominant attitudes. For example, if the majority of the group is composed of SPs, it is often useful to shorten the information collection and alternatives evaluation steps and move relatively quickly to an iterative process of identifying an appropriate solution through action. This identification might be done using psychodrama, building simple models or simulations, and trying out different alternatives. The entire group might brainstorm about the statement of the problem, pertinent facts, and criteria then form a subcommittee to conduct a more thorough analysis. Results could then be submitted to the whole group for consideration, and alternatives could be generated and evaluated. The subcommittee could then take the alternatives, develop a solution, and work out implementation details.

If the group contains a majority of SJs, care should be taken to proceed in a step-by- step, orderly manner, with ample time for consideration of all details at each step. The group leader should consistently remind participants of where they are in the overall process since SJs sometimes focus too intensely on details and lose sight of the broader goal. During the alternatives generation phase, the group leader must be prepared to use any or all techniques for generating creative options since SJs are likely to select a traditional, familiar solution rather than formulate something new. Most importantly, the process must result in a careful, detailed plan of action that participants can follow to solve the problem. Following a step-by-step procedure is the strength of the SJs, and a properly developed solution is likely to be accurately implemented.

If the group is composed mainly of NTs, the group leader should be prepared to spend as much time as possible developing a model of the problem and its related elements. It is critical that group members have a common representation of the problem as this representation will guide the development and selection of alternatives. Careful consideration must be given to collection and discussion of all relevant details and facts as NTs are likely to consider the meaningfulness of the facts and details and often overlook those that conflict with their representations. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, care must be given to carefully analyze any alternative in terms of its impact on people. Consideration of others' perspectives in terms of values and feelings is often difficult for NTs since they tend to view the world in such a logical, analytical manner.

When the group is composed mainly of NFs, it will naturally focus on selecting alternatives that maximize possibilities in people. The same careful attention to facts and details necessary for NTs is also appropriate for NFs since NFs also focus on the significance of facts and details within their representation of the problem. Focusing on facts and details is also beneficial since it more likely results in solutions that can be realistically implemented. NFs are the prototype idealists and sometimes want to select theoretically possible alternatives that are difficult to implement given current circumstances. A process for monitoring implementation of the solution is also important since NFs sometimes do not pay attention to the details of managing the change process.

Table 2 presents aspects of temperament important for problem solving and decision making. Each temperament has distinct elements and preferred processes and techniques as well as different needs or weaknesses. If consideration is given these differences, it increases the likelihood of individual satisfaction with the process and implementation of selected alternatives. Implemented solutions will more likely be effective since they have been considered from all perspectives.

Summary and Conclusions

In general, there is a need to develop and use a problem-solving/decision-making process that is both scientific and considerate of individual differences and viewpoints. While the scientific process has provided a method used successfully in a wide variety of situations, researchers have described individual differences that can influence perspectives and goals related to problem solving. These differences can be used to identify appropriate problem-solving techniques used in each step of the problem-solving process.

The process described in this paper allows individuals to use a standard method in a variety of situations and to adapt it to meet personal preferences. The same process can be used in group situations to satisfy the unique perspectives of individual members. Decisions made in this manner are more likely to be effective since individuals can consciously attend to both personal strengths and weaknesses, while groups are more likely to select solutions that will both solve the problem and be acceptable to individual group members.

Table 2. Aspects of temperament important for problem solving and decision making

The model and the outlined techniques, appeal to individuals differently. Both extraverts and introverts appreciate the process because it constantly allows them to utilize a strength. Sensing types appreciate the organization of information into manageable parts, and intuitives like having a model and a demonstration of the relationships among parts. Intuitives also appreciate having assistance in generating and analyzing specifics. Feeling types appreciate the built-in steps for considering values and affect, but often have the most difficulty with the process. SFs sometimes become confused or overwhelmed with the amount of informtion generated and simply want to focus on what they like or do not like, while NFs think it is silly to be so analytical when the correct answer is obvious and can be ascertained more easily. Perceiving types like the process because it allows for systematic generation and consideration of a variety of alternatives, although strong perceiving types sometimes dislike the structure imposed on the problem-solving process. Judging types like the organization and structure of the process, although strong judging types sometimes become impatient with the length of the process. Care must be taken to provide these individuals with sufficient training so that their personal experiences validate the process.

The benefits of the process described in this paper can be considered in three major categories: general, organizational, and individual.

General . One of the primary benefits of using this process is that it is an effective way of managing change. Because rapid and unpredictable change is the norm today, it is important that sufficient resources be available to manage it. In addition, the process can be used by individuals and organizations to solve a wide variety of problems. Since there is continuous diversity in the types of problems to be solved, it is important to have a generalizable, but flexible, process to resolve them. If it were necessary to have a unique problem-solving technique for every problem, it would be easy to be quickly overwhelmed before even getting started. While it may be impossible to have a single process that is applicable to all problems or decisions by all individuals, it is important to have a generalizable, though flexible, process that individuals believe fits with their unique styles and that can be used to capitalize on strengths and support weaknesses.

A second general advantage is that the process provides for the generation of both objective and subjective criteria used to select and evaluate alternatives. That is, reason and logic are balanced by creativity and divergence throughout the process. Duemler and Mayer (1988) demonstrated that when individuals used both types of techniques they were more successful in their problem solving. This provides the individual and/or group with increased confidence that a correct decision is being made even if reaching that decision requires a little extra time. A related benefit is that use of the process allows decision maker(s)/problem solver(s) to better sell the selected solutions to superiors and/or subordinates since the important individual differences likely to be valued by these individuals have already been considered. Additionally, the process has a built-in step to consider what could go wrong if particular solutions are selected. However, this step is taken only after creative and original alternatives have been considered and does not limit alternatives to those already proven successful.

Work group or organization. One of the primary benefits of using this process in a work group or organization is that it allows individuals within the group to understand the problem thoroughly before considering alternatives. Too often, problem-solving discussions focus on the debate of preselected alternatives. At the outset of the discussion (or perhaps even before), participants select positions as to which alternative is better. The result is a separation into camps of winners and losers. Use of this process takes energy normally spent on arguing for a specific solution and rechannels that energy into a collective search for an acceptable solution.

A related benefit is that a thorough discussion prior to considering alternatives can actually make problem solving less complicated and successful results more likely to be achieved. Quite often group discussion is not about solutions, but about assumptions of facts, criteria, and important values that remain unstated throughout the deliberation. By clearly stating these before alternatives/solutions are discussed, the actual selection of alternatives is often easier. Frequently a lack of careful analysis by groups attempting to solve a problem leads to selecting a solution on some criteria other than "does it solve the problem." Sometimes a situation of "group think" occurs where one alternative is presented, and everyone simply agrees that it is best without critical analysis. This can lead the organization to make decisions based on power relationships (the boss likes this one), on affiliations (George is my friend, so I'll support him), or on some basis other than achievement of goals.

Finally, use of a problem-solving process enhances the development of unity within the work group or organization. If everyone is using the same process of problem solving, then unity or consensus is much easier to achieve. Unified action generally produces better results than nonunified action (Kolstoe, 1985). If the selected solution is incorrect, then problems can be identified quickly and corrections can be made. On the other hand, if all participants are not working toward a common goal or if some members are actually trying to work against group goals, then energy that should be focused on solving the problem is dissipated; the proper solution may not be identified for some time, if at all.

Individual . One of the primary benefits to individuals in using this process is that the strengths and weaknesses of the individual can be identified and used or compensated for when making a decision. Everyone has strong and weak points that result from preferences in how a problem is viewed or considered. Careful selection and application of techniques reviewed in this paper (or similar techniques) increase the likelihood that individuals will enhance their strengths and attend to issues they would otherwise omit or attend to less well.

When participating in the problem-solving process in a group, two additional advantages occur. First, individuals can learn to value alternative viewpoints or preferences by considering differences in others as strengths rather than as "wrong" or of less value. It is only natural that we consider our own approaches or preferences as more correct than other approaches. However, as is evident by the above discussion of the steps in problem solving, all preferences and a variety of techniques must be used if the best solutions are to be developed and implemented. In this era of rapid change, it is vital that we consider all preferences, whether described in personality or otherwise, as being equally appropriate and valuable.

Additionally, the development of an individual's decision-making powers can be enhanced by advancing through the process with others in a group situation. Whimby and Lochhead (1982) have demonstrated that verbalizing one's thinking process while someone else listens and critiques that process (the think-aloud technique) is one of the most valuable ways to improve problem solving and decision making. When individuals are active and participate in a group-based, problem-solving process, it can lead to the development of the skills required to make better independent decisions.

Importance of a Knowledge Base and Critical Thinking Skills

It is generally accepted that at least three elements are required for problem solving and decision making: a knowledge base, an adequate level of thinking and communication skills, and an organized approach or strategy to solve problems (Woods, 1987). While this paper has outlined the third element, it is important to realize that inadequate development of the other two areas will likely result in less than adequate problem-solving performance. A knowledge base is unique to every problem and no general statements are likely to be applicable other than the individual or group must comprehend the facts, concepts, and principles applicable to the specific situation and be able to apply them. On the other hand, many researchers have studied the importance of thinking and communication skills as the foundation for problem solving and decision making and have described numerous attempts to improve them (e.g., Chipman, Segal & Glaser, 1985; Feuerstein, 1979; Nickerson et al., 1985). Without development of these skills, successful execution of the process discussed in this paper becomes more difficult.

Adickes, E. (1907). Character und weltanschauung . Tubingen.

Arnold, J. (1978). The seven building blocks to better decisions . New York: AMACON.

Awani, A. (1983). Project management techniques . New York: Petrocelli Books.

Benson, H. (1987). Your maximum mind . New York: Times Books.

Beinstock, E. (1984). Creative problem solving (Cassette Recording). Stamford, CT: Waldentapes.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain . New York: Longmans Green.

Bransford, J., & Stein, B. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver . New York: W. H. Freeman.

Brookfield, S. (1987 ). Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking and acting . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design. Instructional Science, 13 , 141- 158.

Chipman, S., Segal, J., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1985). Thinking and learning skills: Volume 2.Research and open questions . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Bono, E. (1976). Teaching thinking . London: Temple Smith.

de Bono, E. (1983). de Bono's thinking course . London: British Broadcasting Corp.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think . New York: Heath. (Originally published in 1910).

Devine, T. (1981). Teaching study skills: A guide for teachers . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Duemler, D., & Mayer, R. (1988). Hidden costs of reflectiveness: Aspects of successful scientific reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (4), 419-423.

Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers . Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program in cognitive modifiability . Baltimore: University Park Press.

Fraenkel, J. (1977). How to teach about values: An analytic approach . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Frederiksen, N. (1984). Implications of cognitive theory for instruction in problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 54 , 363-407.

Gagne, R. (1974). Essentials of learning from instruction . Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (3 rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagne, R. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects. American Psychologist, 39 , 377-385.

Gardner, M. (1985). Cognitive psychological approaches to instructional task analysis. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 12 pp. 157-195). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.

Handy, H., & Hussain, K. (1969). Network analysis for educational management . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Heppner, P., Neal, G., & Larson, L. (1984). Problem-solving training as prevention with college students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62 , 514-519.

Hopper, R., & Kirschenbaum, D. (1985). Social problem solving and social competence in preadolescents: Is inconsistency the hobgoblin of little minds? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9 , 685-701.

Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment . New York: The Free Press.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1988, May). Critical thinking through structured controversy. Educational Leadership, 45 , 58-64.

Jung, K. (1971). Psychological types . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1921).

Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me: Character and temperament types . Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co.

Kirschenbaum, H. (1977). Advanced value clarification . La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kolstoe, J. (1985). Consultation . Oxford: George Ronald Press.

Kretschmer, E. (1925). Physique and character (W. Spratt, Trans.). New York: Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1921).

Lakin, M. (1972). Interpersonal encounter: Theory and practice in sensitivity training . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lawrence, G. (1982). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles (2nd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Inc.

Lawrence, G. (1984). A synthesis of learning style research involving the MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type, 8 , 2-15.

Lazarus, A. (1978). In the mind's eye . New York: Rawson.

McCaulley, M. (1987). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A Jungian model for problem solving. In J. Stice (Ed.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (pp. 37-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McKim, R. (1980). Thinking visually: A strategy manual for problem solving . Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning.

Myers, I. (1980). Gifts differing . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Myers, I., & McCaulley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nickerson, R., Perkins, D., & Smith, E. (1985). The teaching of thinking . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.). New York: Scribner.

Pelligrino, J. (1985). Inductive reasoning ability. In R. Sternberg (Ed.)., Human abilities: An information-processing approach (pp. 195-226). New York: W. H. Freeman.

Polya, G. (1971). How to solve it . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Originally published in 1957).

Prince, G. (1970). The practice of creativity . New York: Macmillan.

Rubenstein, M. (1986). Tools for thinking and problem solving . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schnelle, K. (1967). Case analysis and business problem solving . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial . Cambridge: M. I. T. Press.

Skinner, B. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching . Harvard Educational Review, 24 , 86-97.

Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men. Halle, Niemayer, Verlag.

Sternberg, R. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence . New York: Penguin Books.

Stice, J. (Ed.). (1987). Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Whimbey, A., & Lochhead, J. (1982). Problem solving and comprehension (3 rd ed.). Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Press.

Wonder, J., & Donovan, P. (1984 ). Whole-brain thinking: Working from both sides of the brain to achieve peak job performance . New York: Ballantine Books.

Woods, D. (1987). How might I teach problem solving. In J. Stice (Ed.), Developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (pp. 55-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Considering Individual Differences

Dr. William G. (Bill) Huitt

Dept. of Psychology, Counseling, & Guidance Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0001

Office: (912) 333-5613 FAX: (912) 244-9937

[email protected]

Home / Blog / What is collaborative decision-making and how do you implement it?

What is collaborative decision-making and how do you implement it?

September 17th, 2024 by Yvonne Harris

Tired of being the lone ranger when it comes to decision-making? Are you sick of those awkward “I’m the boss, so I decide” moments? Collaborative decision-making is here to save the day!

Imagine a workplace where everyone feels like they have a say, where teams work together like a well-oiled machine, and where decisions are made with the collective wisdom of the group. That’s the magic of collaborative decision-making.

In this article, we’ll explore collaborative decision-making, why it’s a game-changer for teams, and how you can implement it in your organization. We’ll also explore the essential tools and strategies for collaborative decision-making.

Get ready to ditch the “I’m the boss” attitude and embrace the power of teamwork!

What is collaborative decision-making?

Collaborative decision-making is when a group or team works to reach a consensus on a particular issue. It’s a powerful tool for helping organizations make better decisions, improve teamwork, and boost employee morale.

Unlike traditional decision-making processes, which often involve a top-down approach, collaborative decision-making encourages collaboration, participation, and shared ownership. By involving multiple stakeholders in decision-making, organizations can tap into a wider pool of knowledge, expertise, and perspectives, leading to more innovative and effective solutions.

Why is collaborative decision-making important for teams?

There are many reasons why collaborative decision-making is essential for teams. Here are a few of the key benefits:

• Improved decision quality: When teams collaborate, they can leverage their collective knowledge and experience to identify the best options.
• Increased employee engagement: collaborative decision-making can help employees feel more engaged and motivated by giving them a sense of ownership over the decisions that affect their work.
• Enhanced team cohesion: Working together to solve problems can help build stronger relationships and improve teamwork.
• Better problem-solving: collaborative decision-making can help teams identify and address the root causes of problems more effectively.
• Increased innovation: collaborative decision-making can help teams develop more creative and innovative solutions by encouraging collaboration and shared ideas.

How can teams develop effective collaborative decision-making processes?

Developing effective processes requires a commitment to collaboration, open communication, and respect. Here are a few tips for teams looking to improve their collaborative decision-making practices:

• Establish clear goals and objectives: Before making a decision, the team should agree on the goals and objectives they want to achieve.
• Encourage participation: Team members should be encouraged to contribute their ideas and perspectives.
• Facilitate open communication: Create a safe and supportive environment where team members feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and opinions. Effective communication strategies are essential for fostering employee collaboration and ensuring everyone’s voice is heard.
• Use effective decision-making tools: Many tools help teams make decisions more efficiently and effectively.
• Evaluate and improve: Regularly review the team’s collaborative decision-making processes and adjust as needed.

What are the key tools for collaborative decision-making?

Various tools support collaborative decision-making. These tools can help teams communicate more effectively, share information, and make decisions together.

Here are a few examples of tools that can be used:

• Digital workplace platforms provide a central hub for collaboration, communication, and knowledge sharing. They can include document sharing, messaging, and video conferencing features.
• Internal communication tools : These tools can help teams stay connected and informed. They may include email, instant messaging, and social intranets. A well-structured internal communication plan can help ensure that all employees are aligned on the company’s goals and objectives, and that they have the information they need to make informed decisions. Integrated communications can further enhance the effectiveness of corporate communication by ensuring that all communication channels are working together seamlessly.
• Decision-support systems (DSS): DSS can help teams analyze data and identify the best options .
• Project management software can help teams plan, track, and manage projects.

What are the best strategies for collaborative decision-making?

In addition to using the right tools, there are several strategies that teams can adopt to improve their collaborative decision-making. Here are a few of the best methods:

• Establish a culture of trust: A culture of trust is essential for collaborative decision-making. Team members must feel safe and respected to share their ideas and opinions.
• Encourage diversity of thought: Teams should strive to include people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. This can help prevent groupthink and ensure a wide range of options are considered.
• Use a structured decision-making process: A structured decision-making process can help teams make decisions more efficiently and effectively. This process may involve defining the problem, generating options, evaluating options, and selecting a solution.
• Facilitate effective meetings: Meetings should be well-organized and productive. This means setting clear agendas, sticking to the schedule, and ensuring that everyone has a chance to participate.
• Celebrate successes: It is important to recognize and celebrate the team’s successes. This can help boost morale and encourage collaboration.

By following these strategies, teams can improve their collaborative decision-making and achieve better results.

How to overcome obstacles?

Managing resistance to change.

Overcoming resistance to change is a critical step in successfully implementing collaborative decision-making. Here are some strategies to consider:

• Clear communication: Clearly explain the benefits of collaborative decision-making and emphasize its positive impact on employee morale, productivity, and innovation.
• Inclusive involvement: Ensure that all relevant stakeholders are involved in decision-making.
• Targeted training: Provide training and support to help employees adapt to new working methods. Focus on communication skills, problem-solving techniques, and the principles of collaborative decision-making.
• Role clarity: Define each team member’s roles and responsibilities to ensure everyone has an equal voice and understands their contribution to the process.
• Facilitation techniques: Employ facilitation techniques to encourage participation and prevent dominant personalities from overshadowing others. Techniques like the Nominal Group Technique or the Delphi Method can help ensure all voices are heard.
• Inclusive culture: Foster a workplace culture where everyone is treated with respect and valued for their contributions. Encourage diversity of thought and create a safe environment where employees feel comfortable expressing their opinions without fear of judgment.
• Addressing power imbalances: Be mindful of power imbalances within the team and take steps to address them. This might involve using techniques like the Devil’s Advocate to challenge assumptions or provide opportunities for less powerful individuals to express their views.

Organizations can overcome resistance to change by implementing these strategies and creating a more collaborative and effective decision-making environment.

Managing conflict

Conflicts within teams are a common occurrence, often stemming from differing perspectives, limited resources, poor communication, personality clashes, or unclear roles and responsibilities. Here’s how to manage conflict if it does arise:

• Active listening: Emphasize the importance of active listening to understand different perspectives and avoid misunderstandings.
• Compromise and negotiation: Discuss strategies for finding mutually beneficial solutions through compromise and negotiation.
• Mediation and facilitation: Introduce the role of mediators or facilitators in resolving conflicts and guiding the decision-making process.
• Addressing underlying issues: Encourage teams to identify and address the root causes of conflicts to prevent recurrence.
• Celebrating differences: Highlight the value of diversity and emphasize that conflicts can be opportunities for growth and innovation.

In conclusion, collaborative decision-making is a powerful tool to help organizations make better decisions, improve teamwork, and boost employee morale. By creating a collaborative and inclusive environment, teams can harness the power of collective intelligence to achieve their goals.

Powell Software is committed to helping organizations create thriving work environments. Our digital workplace platform provides teams with the tools and resources to collaborate effectively and make better decisions. We invite you to learn more about how Powell Software can help your organization achieve its goals.

Subscribe to our newsletter and receive the latest information about the Digital Workplace every month.

• Online EdD: Leadership
• Why Spalding Online?
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Online Experience
• Testimonials
• Student Support
• Refer a Friend

5 Ways a Doctorate in Education (EdD) Improves Your Strategic Decision-Making

According to  McKinsey , executives spend an average of almost 40% of their time on decision-making. Yet, half of senior executives surveyed by  Kingsley Gate lack confidence in their company’s decision-making ability.

The contrast between decision-making responsibility and confidence presents a growth opportunity for today’s organizational leaders. They can make more efficient and effective decisions by developing strategic leadership skills.

Strategic decision-making is vital for every leader in every industry. One way current and aspiring leaders can hone these skills is by earning a Doctor of Education (EdD) and learning from both faculty and peers. Keep reading to learn five ways that completing an EdD program will advance your leadership in strategic decision-making.

Why Are Strategic Decision-Making Skills Important for Organizational Leaders?

Strategic decision-making refers to  developing and implementing decisions that influence long-term organizational success. It involves many internal and external stakeholders, but organizational leaders are accountable for the outcomes.

Strategic leadership drives decision-making that helps organizations overcome challenges and leverage opportunities, driving long-term success. Strategic decision-making also affects the bottom line. According to  McKinsey research, leaders who are ineffective at decision-making cost Fortune 500 companies approximately $250 million in annual pay.

Kodak is an example of a company that has struggled with strategic decision-making. Kodak achieved its peak  market capitalization of $31 billion in 1997. Fifteen years later, the film photography giant filed for bankruptcy.

Contributing to the  downfall of Kodak was the decision to delay investment in digital photography innovation. In 1975, Kodak invented the first-ever digital camera prototype. However, leadership decided not to take it and other emerging technologies to market to avoid threatening Kodak’s thriving film business.

When Kodak finally entered the digital photography market in the mid-1990s, companies like Canon and Sony had already captured a substantial share. Kodak declared bankruptcy in 2012 and reemerged a year later with a new focus on commercial printing. Today, it is striving to regain its market dominance.

The Kodak example shows how leaders must proactively recognize and act on growth opportunities. When strategic leadership is lacking, organizations put their long-term viability at risk.

How Can Earning an EdD Prepare You to Lead in Strategic Decision-Making?

EdD programs emphasize the practical application of leadership theory and research. They are designed to  improve leadership skills so that candidates can effectively address real-world challenges.

As an EdD candidate, you will develop skills essential to making strategic decisions—from organizational analysis and problem-solving to risk management and change management. The ability to immediately apply your learning from an EdD program to practice will further equip you to make more informed and effective decisions.

1. Organizational Analysis

Earning an EdD will prepare you to lead in strategic decision-making by developing skills in organizational analysis. You will learn to  uncover opportunities for greater organizational efficiency and effectiveness, identifying issues and their root causes.

Organizational analysis relies on an understanding of systems theory and leadership theory. EdD candidates learn to view organizations as the sum of interconnected parts and explore the leadership behaviors and styles that influence change across them.

By building competency in organizational analysis, you can identify areas for improvement and align your strategic decision-making with organizational needs and goals.

2. Problem-Solving

Strategic decision-making involves approaching problems and solutions from many angles. EdD programs enhance problem-solving skills so leaders can develop and implement effective solutions. You will build advanced research, communication and systems thinking skills enabling you to think critically about  varied perspectives for addressing organizational issues.

Leaders make evidence-based decisions using a systematic approach to data collection and analysis. That is why EdD programs teach candidates to conduct and apply qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method research studies. Candidates also advance their communication skills to collect valuable insights. They learn techniques for engaging with diverse stakeholders and soliciting different perspectives.

Developing a systems-thinking mindset allows EdD candidates to understand the effects of their decisions. When leaders know the potential outcomes of each solution, they can decide by weighing the pros and cons.

Effective problem-solvers are strategic decision-makers. Leaders can drive progress by basing their decisions on a clear understanding of the issues, leaders can drive progress.

3. Risk Management

Strategic decision-makers know how to minimize risk while maximizing growth. What you learn in an EdD program will help you mitigate risks and identify opportunities for growth.

Risk assessment and data analysis are two relevant tools you will learn as an EdD candidate. Risk assessment identifies and assesses potential risks. By understanding the factors that can threaten organizational health, leaders can prevent and overcome them effectively. Data analysis is the collection, processing and evaluation of data, which can reveal risks and opportunities. Both tools provide valuable insights that inform strategic decision-making.

Leaders adept at  risk management can make decisions that protect organizations from risks while fostering innovation. Both aims help organizations achieve resilience in the long term.

4. Change Management

The strategic decision-making process doesn’t end with the decision. Organizational leaders guide the implementation of their decisions through the process of change management . Change management ensures that organzational stakeholders and processes adapt smoothly to the chosen action.

Leaders can achieve the desired outcome of their decisions when they foster effective change implementation. As part of strategic decision-making, leaders must be able to manage organizational change. This involves strategic planning, team building and partnerships. EdD programs teach all of these skills.

You will learn how to  execute decisions through strategic planning, which defines the resources, actions and desired outcomes for implementation. You will also learn about forming collaborative and resilient teams and external partnerships to implement change.

5. Practical Application

EdD programs expose candidates to real-world leaders and organizational challenges. As a result, they develop the confidence to make strategic decisions more effectively.

Faculty who are practicing leaders bring real-world insights and perspectives to EdD programs, equipping candidates with a deeper understanding of effective leadership. The inclusion of case studies and a capstone project enables candidates to translate theoretical knowledge into practice.

Plus, EdD programs designed for working professionals allow candidates to earn their degrees while continuing to work, so students can apply and refine leadership strategies and skills in real time.

Advance your Strategic Leadership with an Online EdD in Leadership from Spalding University

Strategic decision-making ensures long-term growth for organizations in every industry. Leaders who want to drive organizational success more effectively can advance their strategic leadership by earning an EdD.

Whether you work in education, business, healthcare, social services or the arts, Spalding University’s  Online EdD in Leadership will empower you to drive innovative change. It is a collaborative and interdisciplinary program designed for working professionals to build advanced leadership skills. 

As a student in Spalding’s online EdD in Leadership program, you will learn to innovate and create sustainable, transformational change. The program focuses on these four professional themes:

• Advanced Leadership Concepts in Practice: Evolve your leadership approach through the analysis of traditional and modern theory as well as through personal development.
• Global and Cultural Perspectives: Develop a sophisticated awareness and understanding of the cultural differences in local, national and global contexts to evolve your leadership practices.
• Organizational Innovation and Change: Use proven methods and systems thinking to facilitate innovation and influence organizational transformation.
• Research-Informed Decision-Making: Apply research-based best practices and methodologies to support impactful, data-driven decisions, as demonstrated in a final capstone project.

When you complete Spalding’s accredited online EdD in Leadership program, you will stand out as an exemplary practitioner of ethical organizational leadership, an extraordinary team builder, a systems thinker and a driver of change and innovation in a global economy.

Getting your EdD in leadership from Spalding can help you inspire change in your workplace and community.  Connect with an enrollment advisor to get started.

Requirements Not Met

To proceed with either the BSN to MSN FNP or the BSN to DNP FNP, you are required to have a bachelor’s degree and hold your RN license.

If you don’t meet these requirements but would still like further information, please contact us .

To proceed with the EdD in Educational Leadership and Organizational Leadership, you are required to have a master’s degree.

If you don’t meet this requirement but would still like further information, please contact us .

X Close Box

• Request Info

Master of Business Administration (MBA)

The Reinhardt MBA program develops in each graduate the skills necessary to analyze and interpret complex business situations, to seek and employ innovative methods for solving business problems, and to lead diverse groups of individuals effectively and ethically .  Furthermore, the Reinhardt MBA teaches students to recognize strategic and   operational advantages and to use analytical and critical thinking skills necessary for effective   strategic and tactical decision-making. Reinhardt MBA students learn to utilize interpersonal skills to foster team consensus ,  leadership, business ethics,   and individual as well as social responsibility.

Program Coordinator

Tony   Daniel,   Ph.D.,   SHRM-SCP  Professor of Business 770-720-5638 [email protected]

Accreditation

Reinhardt University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) to award associate, baccalaureate, and masters. Questions about the accreditation of Reinhardt University may be directed in writing to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges at 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033-4097, by calling(404) 679-4500, or by using information available on SACSCOC’s website ( www.sacscoc.org).

Reinhardt University's overall educational program emphasizes the study of liberal arts, sciences and professional studies within the University's historic commitment to the United Methodist faith and tradition. The University affirms that learning is best facilitated through a partnership between faculty members and students where the integration of faith and   learning   is   essential.   The   University   is   committed to students who desire a small, caring community dedicated to personalized attention.

The MBA program shares the same commitments of the University's overall mission, but with a focus on the graduate student community. The MBA program challenges students academically and “puts them in the chair” of the decision maker in actual business situations. This is done by personal interaction and case   study   assignments with   other   students   and   with   a unique faculty that is academically qualified and seasoned with of business experience.

MBA   Student   Learning Outcomes

MBA students demonstrate the following qualities, abilities, and skills upon completion of the program:

M1 Critical Thinking, Analytical and Problem- Solving Skills -  analyze business situations using information and logic to make recommendations for problem solving and decision making.

M2 Interpersonal, Teamwork, Leadership, and Communications Skills -  use team building and collaborative behaviors in the accomplishment of group tasks and will communicate effectively the problem alternatives considered, a recommended solution, and an implementation strategy in oral, written and electronic form.

M3 Ethical Issues and Responsibilities -  recognize and analyze ethical dilemmas and propose resolutions for practical business solutions.

M4 Business Skills and Knowledge -  apply best practices, established theories, and managerial skills to business situations and problems.

M5 Awareness of Global and Multicultural Issues -  demonstrate awareness of, and analyze, global and multicultural issues as they relate to  business.

M6 Knowledge of Research Methodologies  - derive business decision-making applications based upon sound research practices and procedures.

Admission  Requirements

All admission documents should be sent to the following address:

Office of Admissions  Reinhardt University  7300 Reinhardt Circle Waleska, GA 30183 PHONE: 770-720-5526 e-mail:   [email protected]

General admission to Reinhardt University graduate studies:

• The Graduate Admission Application form—complete and submit the Online Application for Admission
• Submit official transcripts from all institutions attended; proof of a baccalaureate degree from a regionally accredited institution should be on one transcript. If a transcript includes any graduate classes, the applicant should have left the graduate program in good standing.

Official transcripts must be mailed from the granting institution, or delivered in   a   sealed envelope from   the institution, or sent via a professional electronic transcript sending service.

Additional admission requirements for the Reinhardt MBA:

• A professional résumé.
• A 300-word essay on how an online MBA fits with the applicant’s career goals
• Three letters of reference addressing the applicant’s ability to carry out graduate course work, with one letter addressing the applicant’s two (2) years of full-time, post- baccalaureate career experience.

And, either

A Bachelor’s Degree in Business from a regionally accredited university with a minimum 2.75 GPA (alternate discretion criteria: a greater than 3.0 GPA in the last 60 credits)

• An online interview with the MBA Program Coordinator or his/her designee may be required.

Note:  If the applicant’s undergraduate degree is not in Business, then, the candidate must have a Bachelor's Degree from a regionally accredited university with at least a 2.75 GPA.

Admission for Current Reinhardt  University Undergraduate Students

Applicants   who   complete   an   a   bachelor’s   degree   at Reinhardt University with a 3.0 GPA or higher-

• Submit the graduate school application
• Students in this category can automatically be accepted without references, interviews, and/or essays by the admissions department

Applicants   who   complete   a   bachelor’s   degree   at   Reinhardt University with less than a 3.0 GPA-

• Submit graduate application
• Students in this category can be accepted without references, interviews, and/or essays but must be approved by the program coordinator
• Other documents may be required at the discretion of the program coordinator

Transfer  Credit

No transfer courses are accepted for credit.

Credit   hour   policy  (Online)

Over seven (7) weeks, students will spend a variable number of minutes per week in online lectures, class discussions, and in preparation of class projects and research papers. Instructional time includes a 3-hour final exam. Out-of-class work includes homework and preparation for exams and quizzes and is a variable number of minutes per week (6750 minutes for the semester).

Graduate Students are expected to participate each week in required assignments as scheduled by the instructor. This may require collaboration among classmates and outside research .

Academic Performance

MBA students are expected to earn grades of “A” or “B” in their course work. Only one (1) course grade of   “C”   may   be   included   in   the   computation   for   degree completion.   A   second   course grade   of   “C”   will   result in   Academic   Probation. The   course   must   be retaken to count toward degree completion.   A third course   grade   of   “C”   or   a   first   course   grade   of “F” will result in Academic Dismissal.

A student may appeal a dismissal by submitting a letter to the vice President for Academic Affairs describing the condition and identifying the reasons for seeking a positive decision of the appeal.

See also Grade Appeals  and Enrollment Related Appeals  under Appeals and Petitions .

Graduation Requirements:

• A cumulative GPA of at least 3.0, and
• No more than (1) one “C” in the program, counted toward degree completion, regardless of the GPA.
• A maximum of 5 years for completion

See Academic Performance and Degree Completion Requirements .

Degrees and Certificates

Master of Business Administration (MBA), Master of Business Administration (MBA)