Choice

src: d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net

Options involves decision making. This could include assessing the benefits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them. One can make a choice between the options imaginable ("What would I do if...?") Or between real options followed by the appropriate action. For example, a traveler may choose a route to travel based on his preference to arrive at the specified destination as soon as possible. The preferred route (and hence chosen) can then follow from information such as the length of each possible route, traffic conditions, etc. The arrival of an option can include more complex motivators such as cognition, instinct, and feelings.

Simple choices may include what to eat for dinner or what to wear on Saturday mornings - options that have relatively low impact on overall voter life. More complex choices may involve (for example) what candidates should be selected in the election, what professions to pursue, the spouse, etc. - choices based on various influences and have greater consequences.

Most people regard choice as a good thing, though limited limited choice can cause inconvenience in choosing, and possibly unsatisfactory results. Conversely, choices with multiple choices can lead to confusion, regrets of unexpected alternatives, and indifference in unstructured presence; and the illusion that choosing an object or course, necessarily leading to the control of that object or course, can cause psychological problems.

Video Choice

Jenis

There are four main types of decisions, although they can be expressed in different ways. Brian Tracy divides them into:

1. Command decision, which can only be made by you, as "Supreme Commander"; or the owner of the company.
2. Delegated decisions, which can be made by anyone, such as the color of the bike being shed, and must be delegated, because the decision should be made but the choice is not important.
3. Avoids decisions, where results can be so severe that options can not be made, because the consequences can not be recovered from if the wrong choice is made. This will most likely result in negative actions, such as death.
4. "No brain" decision, where the choice is so clear that only one option can be made.

The fifth, however, or fourth type if avoided and the "no thinking" decision are combined as one type, is a collaborative decision, to be made in consultation with, and with the agreement of others. Collaborative Decision Making revolutionized the safety of air traffic by not delaying the captain when lower crew members became aware of a problem.

Another way to look at the decision focuses on the mechanism of thought used, is its decision:

• Rational
• Intuitive
• Recognition by
• Combination

Recognizing that "type" is an incorrect term, an alternative way to classify the type of choice is to look at the results and the affected entity. For example, using this approach, three types of options are:

• Business
• Private
• Consumer

In this approach, defining the types of options makes it possible to identify related decisions that will affect and limit certain options and be influenced and limited by other options.

There are many available "executive decision makers" products, such as decision wheel and Magic 8-Ball, which randomly generate yes/no or other "decisions" for someone who can not decide or just wants to delegate.

Ouija Council is also a delegated decision.

As a moral principle, decisions must be taken by those most affected by the decision, but this is not usually applied to people in prison, who may be able to make decisions other than remain in jail. Robert Gates cited this principle in allowing photographs of the war to return to death.

Maps Choice

Evaluation in economy

When choosing between options, one must make judgments about the quality of each option attribute. For example, if a person chooses between candidates for a job, the quality of relevant attributes such as previous work experience, high school or college GPA, and letters of recommendation will be assessed for each option and the decision will likely be based on this attribute assessment. However, each attribute has a different level of evaluability , that is, the extent to which one can use information from that attribute to make an assessment.

An example of a highly valuable attribute is the SAT score. It is widely known in the United States that a SAT score below 800 is very poor while a SAT score above 1500 is very good. Since the distribution of scores on these relatively well-known attributes is a highly evaluable attribute. Compare SAT scores with attributes that can not be properly valued, such as the number of hours spent doing homework. Most companies will not know what to spend 10,000 hours to do homework because they do not know the distribution of the number of potential workers in the population on this attribute.

As a result, evaluability can lead to a preference reversal between shared and separate evaluations. For example, Hsee, George Loewenstein, Blount & amp; Bazerman (1999) looks at how people choose between options when they are directly compared because they are presented at the same time or when they can not be compared because one is given only one option. A canonical example is a hiring decision made against two candidates employed for programming work. Subjects in the experiments were asked to give an initial salary to two candidates, Candidate J and Candidate S. However, some viewed both candidates at the same time (joint evaluation), while others saw only one candidate (separate evaluation). Candidate J has 70 KY program experiences, and GPA 2.5, while Candidate S has 10 KY and 3.9 GPA experience. The results showed that in the joint evaluation, both candidates received the same initial salary from the subject, which seemed to regard low GPA but high experience roughly equal to high GPA but low experience. However, in a separate evaluation, the subject pays Candidate S, who has a high GPA, is far more money. The explanation for this is that the KY program is an attribute that is difficult to evaluate and thus one can not base their judgment on this attribute in a separate evaluation.

Personal factors determine the choice of food. They are preference, association, customs, ethnic heritage, traditions, values, social pressures, emotional comfort, availability, comfort, economy, image, medical condition, and nutrition.

src: i.ytimg.com

Number of options and paradox

A number of research studies in economic psychology have focused on how individual behavior differs when the choice of set sizes (number of choices to choose from) is low compared when high. What is interesting is whether individuals are more likely to buy products from large bundles versus small choices. At present, the effect of the choice size set on the purchasing probability is unclear. In some cases, large set size options prevent individuals from making choices and in other cases it either encourages them or has no effect. One study comparing the appeal of more choices to tyranny is too much choice. Individuals go virtual shopping in various stores that have a set of randomly selected options ranging from 4 to 16, with some good choices and some bad ones. Researchers found a stronger effect for the appeal of more choices. However, they speculate that due to the random assignment of a number of choices and favorites of those choices, many stores with fewer choices include zero or just one pretty good option, which might make it easier to make an acceptable choice when more options are available.

There is some evidence that while larger choices have the potential to improve one's well-being, there are sometimes too many choices. For example, in one experiment involving free soda options, individuals were explicitly asked to choose from six compared to 24 sodas, where the only benefit of a smaller choice would be to reduce the cognitive load of choice. A recent study supporting this research, found that human service workers indicate preferences for scenarios with limited options over broad options scenarios. As the number of options in the broad-choice scenario increases, preferences for limited options also increase. Efforts to explain why choices can lower a person's motivation from purchasing focus on two factors. One assumes that a careful reading of a number of choices places more cognitive load on the individual. Others assume that individuals may experience remorse if they make suboptimal choices, and sometimes avoid making choices to avoid having regrets.

Further research has evolved in an excessive choice, suggesting that there is a paradox of choice. As the choice increases, three issues arise. First, there is the problem of obtaining adequate information about the choice to make a decision. Second, having more choices leads to the escalation of hope. When there is an increased option, the standard person for what acceptable results rises; in other words, the choice "damages you." Thirdly, with many options available, people may believe they are to blame for unacceptable results because with so many choices, they should be able to choose the best. If there is one option available, and ultimately disappointing, the world can be held accountable. When there are many choices and choices made disappointing, the individual is responsible.

However, recent meta-analyzes of the literature on excess choice make these studies questionable (Scheibehenne, Greigeneder, and Todd, 2010). In many cases, the researchers found no effect on the size of the chosen choice on people's beliefs, feelings, and behaviors. Indeed, overall, the effect of "too many choices" is minimal.

While it may be expected that it is better to leave one's options open, research has shown that having the opportunity to revise a person's decisions makes people less satisfied with the outcome of the decision. A recent study found that participants experienced higher regret after making inverted decisions. The results show that recoverable decisions cause people to constantly think about options that are still relevant, which may increase dissatisfaction with decisions and regrets.

Individual personality plays an important role in how individuals deal with the size of many selected choices. Psychologists have developed a decisive personality test in which a person is on the spectrum of gratification. A maximizer is a person who is always looking for the best option from a set of choices, and may suffer after a choice is made, whether that is indeed the best. The satisfaction can set high standards but be satisfied with good choices, and put fewer priorities in making the best choice. Due to different approaches to decision making, maximization is more likely to avoid making choices when the size of a set option is large, perhaps to avoid the sadness associated with not knowing whether their choices are optimal. One study looked at whether the difference in the choice of satisfaction between the two is partly due to differences in willingness to commit to one's choice. It was found that maximizers reported stronger preferences to maintain the ability to revise options. Moreover, after making the choice to buy posters, the observers offer a higher rating of their preferred poster and a lower rating of the rejected alternatives. However, maximizers are less likely to change their impression of posters after making choices that make them less satisfied with their decisions.

Maximizers are less happy in life, perhaps because of their obsession to make optimal choices in a society where people are often confronted with choices. One study found that maximizers reported significantly less life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem, and significantly more regret and depression, than satisfactory. In terms of buying a product, maximization is less satisfied with consumer decisions and more regrettable. They are also more likely to be involved in social comparisons, in which they analyze their relative social position among their peers, and to be more influenced by social comparisons where others appear to be taller than they are. For example, the viewers who see their colleagues solve puzzles faster than themselves reveal even greater doubt about their own abilities and show greater improvement in negative moods. On the other hand, people who resist the urge to make better choices through drugs or other forms of escape tend to be happier in life.

Others say that there is never too much choice and that there is a difference between happiness and satisfaction: someone who tries to find a better decision will often be dissatisfied, but not always unhappy because his efforts to find a better option have improved his lifestyle (even if it was not the best decision he/she would continue to try gradually increase the decision he took).

The architecture of choice is the process of encouraging people to make good choices through grouping and ordering decisions in ways that maximize successful choices and minimize the number of people becoming so overwhelmed by the complexity that they abandon attempts to choose. Generally, success is enhanced by presenting smaller or simpler options first, and by choosing and promoting reasonable default options.

src: thumbs.dreamstime.com

Identity relationship

Certain choices, as a personal preference, can be central to expressing the concept of one's self-identity or values. In general, the more utilitarian an item, the fewer choices it says about one's self-concept. Pure functional items, such as fire extinguishers, can be chosen solely for functions only, but non-functional objects, such as music, fashion clothing, or home decorations, may be chosen to express the concept of one's self-identity or related values. value.

src: i.ytimg.com

Attitude

Sophia Rosenfeld analyzed the critical reaction to the choice in her review of some of the works of Iyengar, Ben-Porath, Greenfield, and Salecl.

src: www.choicepartners.org

Other uses

• Behavior of animals : see preference test (animal)
• Legal : the age at which children or young adults can make meaningful choices and are considered causing problems for ethics and jurisprudence
• Math : the binomial coefficient is also known as the preferred function
• Politics : political movements in the United States and the United Kingdom supporting the availability of legal abortion call themselves "pro-choice"
• New Zealand English : a slang synonym for "cool", "nice" or "good"; eg "That's a choice!"
• Psychology : see choice theory

src: i.ytimg.com

See also

• List of topics related to thoughts
• Preferred architecture
• Decision making software
• Example option
• Hobson Options
• Intertemporal option
• Sheena Iyengar, author of The Art of Choosing
• Neuroscience of free will
• Public choice theory, social choice theory
• Rational choice theory
• Preferred Paradox: Why Less Less (book)
• Forced choice of two alternatives
• Will (philosophy)

src: i.ytimg.com

References

src: i.ytimg.com

Further reading

• Barry Schwartz (2005). The Paradox of Choice: why less . Harper Perennial. ISBN: 978-0-06-000569-6. Rosenthal, Edward C. (2006). Choice Era: The Ability to Choose and Transform Contemporary Life . MIT Press. ISBN: 0-262-68165-X.
• Daniel Kahneman (Editor), Amos Tversky (Editor) (1999). Options, Values, and Frames . Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0-521-62749-8. Ã, CS1 maint: Extras text: list of authors (links)
• Hsee, C.K., Loewenstein, G.F., Blount, S., Bazerman, M.H. (1999). Reversal of preferences between joint and separate evaluations of options: Overview and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125 (5) , 576-590.
• Irons, B. and C. Hepburn. 2007. "Regret The Theory and the Choice Tyranny." Economic Record. 83 (261): 191-203.
• Iyengar, S.S. and M.R. Lepper. 2000. "When Choice Lowers Emotions: Can One Wish Too Much Good?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (6): 996-1006.
• Norwood, F. 2006. "Less Options Better, Sometimes." Journal of the Organization of Agriculture and Food Industry. 4 (1). Article 3.
• Norwood, F. Bailey, Jayson L. Lusk, Bharath Arunachalam, and Shida Rastegari Henneberry. "Empirical Investigation Becomes Excessive Choice Effects." American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Coming soon.

src: jdl.in

External links

Source of the article : Wikipedia