Heuristic shortcuts in policy decisions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18041/1900-3803/entramado.1.8730Keywords:
Heuristics, Decisions, Politics, Biases, PrejudicesAbstract
Cognitive sciences, especially psychology and social neuroscience, have offered in recent years, thanks to advances in brain research and non-invasive neuroimaging techniques, novel methods to understand the neurobiological mechanisms underlying decision-making. Therefore, this paper seeks to understand the extent to which heuristic shortcuts contribute to political decision-making, by contrasting the different mental shortcuts and cognitive biases assumed by voters when choosing candidates or political parties.
Downloads
References
ANDERSON Craig A; LEPPER Mark R; ROSS Lee. Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980. vol. 39, no. 6, p. 1037-1049. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077720
BACON Francis. Novum Organum: True Suggestions for the Interpretation of Nature. United States: Independently published. 2021. 346 p.
BANDUCCI, Susan A; KARP Jeffrey A; THRASHER Michael; RALLINGS Colin. Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections. In: Political Psychology. 2008. vol. 29, no. 6, p. 903-917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00672.x
BERGGREN Niclas; JORDAHL Henrik; POUTVAARA, Panu. The looks of a winner: beauty and electoral success. In: Journal of Public Economics. 2010. vol. 94, no. 1-2, p. 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.11.002
BRADSHAW Corey J A; EHRLICH Paul R; BEATTIE Andrew; CEBALLOS Gerardo; CRIST Eileen; DIAMOND Joan; DIRZO Rodolfo; EHRLICH Anne H; HARTE John; HARTE Mary Ellen; PYKE Graham; RAVEN Peter H; RIPPLE William J; SALTRÉ Frédérik; TURNBULL Christine; WACKERNAGEL Mathis y BLUMSTEIN Daniel T. Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. In: Frontiers in Conservation Science. 2021. vol. 1, p. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419
DEJONCKHEERE Egon; RHEE Joshua J; BAGUMA Peter K; BARRY Oumar; BECKER Maja; BILEWICZ Michał; CASTELAIN Thomas; COSTANTINI Giulio; DIMDINS Girts; ESPINOSA Agustín; FINCHILESCU Gillian; FRIESE Malte; GASTARDO-CONACO Maria Cecilia; GÓMEZ Angel; GONZÁLEZ Roberto; GOTO Nobuhiko; HALAMA Peter; HURTADO-PARRADO Camilo; JIGA-BOY Gabriela M; KARL Johannes A; NOVAK Lindsay; AUSMEES Liisi; LOUGHNAN Steve; MASTOR Khairul A; MCLATCHIE Neil; ONYISHI Ike E; RIZWAN Muhammad; SCHALLER Mark; SERAFIMOVSKA Eleonora; SUH Eunkook M; SWANN William B; TONG Eddie M W; RHIANNON N Turner; Ana TORRES; VINOGRADOV Alexander; WANG Zhechen; WAI-LAN YEUNG Victoria; AMIOT Catherine E: BOONYASIRIWAT Watcharaporn; PEKER Müjde; VAN LANGE Paul A M; VAUCLAIR Christin-Melanie; KUPPENS Peter; BASTIAN Brock. Perceiving societal pressure to be happy is linked to poor well-being, especially in happy nations. En: Scientific Reports. 2022. vol. 12, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-04262-z
FESTINGER Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Amsterdam: University Press. 1962. 291 p.
HARMON-JONES, Eddie. Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology (2nd ed.). United States: American Psychological Association (APA). 2019. 303 p.
HASELTON, Martie G; NETTLE Daniel; MURRAY Damian R. The Evolution of Cognitive Bias En: The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. 2000. vol. 1-20 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118797914
HOLM Charles. (2015). The 25 Cognitive Biases: Uncovering The Myth Of Rational Thinking (English Edition). United States: Edición Kindle. 2015. 32 p.
KAHNEMAN Daniel. Pensar Rápido, Pensar Despacio. México: Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial SA de CV. 2013. 672 p.
KANAI Ryota; FEILDEN Tom; FIRTH Colin; REES Geraint. Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. In: Current Biology. 2011. vol. 21, no. 8, p. 677-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017
KAUFMANN Marc. Projection Bias in Effort Choices. In: AEA Randomized Controlled Trials. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4011-2.0
KORTELING J E Hans; TOET Alexander. Cognitive Biases. En: Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 2nd edition. 2022. 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.24105-9
LAU Richard R; REDLAWSK David P. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. In: American Journal of Political Science. 2001. vol. 45, no. 4, p. 951. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669334
LAUSTSEN Lasse. Decomposing the relationship between candidates’ facial appearance and electoral success. In: Political Behavior. 2014. vol. 36, no. 4, p. 777-791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9253-1
LAUSTSEN Lasse; PETERSEN Michael Bang. Does a competent leader make a good friend? Conflict, ideology, and the psychologies of friendship and followership. In: Evolution and Human Behavior. 2015. vol. 36, no. 4, p. 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.01.001
LAUSTSEN Lasse; PETERSEN Michael Bang. When the party decides: the effects of facial competence and dominance on internal nominations of political candidates. In: Evolutionary Psychology. 2018. vol. 16, no. 2, p. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917732005
LAZARSFELD, Paul F. The election is over. En: Public Opinion Quarterly. 1944. vol. 8, no. 3, p. 317. Disponible en Internet: https://doi.org/10.1086/265692
LENZ Gabriel S; LAWSON Chappell. Looking the part: television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance. En: American Journal of Political Science. 2011. vol. 55, no. 3, p. 574-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00511.x
LOEWENSTEIN George; O'DONOGHUE Ted; RABIN Matthew. Projection bias in predicting future utility. In: The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003. vol. 118, no. 4, p. 1209-1248. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355303322552784
MANES Facundo; NIRO Mateo. El cerebro del futuro. Argentina: Editorial Planeta: 2018. 360 p.
MANES Facundo; NIRO Mateo. Ser humanos. Colombia: Editorial Planeta. 2021. 552 p.
MARKMAN Arthur B; MEDIN Douglas L. Decision making. En: PASHLER Hal y MEDIN Douglas. eds. Steven’s handbook of experimental psychology: memory and cognitive processes. 3a ed. New York: Wiley, 2002. p. 413-466.
MARSHALL James A R; TRIMMER Pete C; HOUSTON Alasdair I; McNAMARA John M. On evolutionary explanations of cognitive biases. En: Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2013. vol. 28, no. 8, p. 469-473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.013
OLIVOLA Christopher Y; TODOROV Alexander. Elected in 100 milliseconds: appearance-based trait inferences and voting. En: Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2010. vol. 34, no. 2, p. 83-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-009-0082-1
PARK J; KITAYAMA S. Individualism. En: Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. 2012, p. 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-375000-6.00204-4
PETERS Uwe. What is the function of confirmation bias? In: Erkenntnis. 2022. Vol. 87, p. 1351-1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1
PETERSEN M B. Evolutionary Political Psychology: On the Origin and Structure of Heuristics and Biases. In: Political Psychology. 2015. Vol. 36, p. 45-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12237
PHILLIPS Tom. Humanos: Una breve historia de cómo lo jodimos todo. México: Editorial Planeta Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. 2019. 256 p.
PINKER Steven. Racionalidad: Qué es, por qué escasea y cómo promoverla. México: Ediciones culturales Paidos S. A. 2021. 536 p.
RAMPELLO Silvia Marisa. Biases in decision making. En: Perspectivas. 2019. vol. 9, no. 1, p. 85-94. https://doi.org/10.19137/perspectivas-2019-v9n1a06
SCHOPENHAUER Arturo. El mundo como voluntad y representación. México: Editorial Porrúa S. A. 2009. 415 p.
SHAROT Tali. The optimism bias. En: Current Biology. 2011. vol. 21, no. 23, p. R941—R945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030
SHENKMAN Rick. Political Animals. United Kingdom: Hachette. 2016. 336 p.
SOROKA Stuart N; WLEZIEN Christopher. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy (1.a ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 254 p.
TANDETNIK, Caroline; SOHIER Elisa; CAPELLE Laurent; Du BOULLAY Viviane; OBADIA Michael; CHAMMAT Mariam; PYATIGORSKAIA Nadya; NACCACHE Lionel. Cognitive dissonance resolution depends on executive functions and frontal lobe integrity. In: Cortex. 2021. vol. 139, p. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.02.018
TAVRIS Carol; ARONSON Elliot. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Third Edition: Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. United States: Mariner Books. 2020. 464 p.
TODOROV Alexander; MANDISODZA Anesu N; GOREN Amir; HALL Crystal. Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes. En: Science. 2005. Vol. 308, no. 5728, p. 1623–1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589
TVERSKY Amos; KAHNEMAN Daniel. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. In: Science. 1974. Vol. 185 no. 4157, p. 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
TVERSKY Amos; KAHNEMAN Daniel. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. In: Science. 1981. Vol. 211 no. 4481, p. 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
VANDENBOS Gary R. APA Dictionary of Psychology. United States: American Psychological Association. 2015. 1204 p.
WESTEN Drew. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. United Kingdom: Public Affairs. 2008. 496 p.
ZARAGOZA Maria S; LANE Sean M. Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994. vol. 20, no. 4, p. 934-945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.934
ZHANG Yanchi; PAN Zhe; LI Kai; GUO Yongyu. Self-Serving bias in memories. In: Experimental Psychology. 2018. vol. 65, no. 4, p. 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000409
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Entramado
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
