Steps[edit]

GOFER[edit]
In the 1980s, psychologist Leon Mann and colleagues developed a decision-making
process called GOFER, which they taught to adolescents, as summarized in the boo
k Teaching Decision Making To Adolescents.[13] The process was based on extensiv
e earlier research conducted with psychologist Irving Janis.[14] GOFER is an acr
onym for five decision-making steps:
Goals: Survey values and objectives.
Options: Consider a wide range of alternative actions.
Facts: Search for information.
Effects: Weigh the positive and negative consequences of the options.
Review: Plan how to implement the options.
DECIDE[edit]
Main article: DECIDE
In 2008, Kristina Guo published the DECIDE model of decision-making, which has s
ix parts:[15]
Define the problem
Establish or Enumerate all the criteria (constraints)
Consider or Collect all the alternatives
Identify the best alternative
Develop and implement a plan of action
Evaluate and monitor the solution and examine feedback when necessary
Other[edit]
In 2007, Pam Brown of Singleton Hospital in Swansea, Wales, divided the decision
-making process into seven steps:[16]
Outline your goal and outcome.
Gather data.
Develop alternatives (i.e., brainstorming).
List pros and cons of each alternative.
Make the decision.
Immediately take action to implement it.
Learn from and reflect on the decision.
In 2009, professor John Pijanowski described how the Arkansas Program, an ethics
curriculum at the University of Arkansas, used eight stages of moral decision-m
aking based on the work of James Rest:[17]:6
Establishing community: Create and nurture the relationships, norms, and procedu
res that will influence how problems are understood and communicated. This stage
takes place prior to and during a moral dilemma.
Perception: Recognize that a problem exists.
Interpretation: Identify competing explanations for the problem, and evaluate th
e drivers behind those interpretations.
Judgment: Sift through various possible actions or responses and determine which
is more justifiable.
Motivation: Examine the competing commitments which may distract from a more mor
al course of action and then prioritize and commit to moral values over other pe
rsonal, institutional or social values.
Action: Follow through with action that supports the more justified decision.
Reflection in action.
Reflection on action.
Group stages[edit]
According to B. Aubrey Fisher, there are four stages or phases that should be in
volved in all group decision-making:[18]
Orientation. Members meet for the first time and start to get to know each other
.

Conflict. Once group members become familiar with each other, disputes, little f
ights and arguments occur. Group members eventually work it out.
Emergence. The group begins to clear up vague opinions by talking about them.
Reinforcement. Members finally make a decision and provide justification for it.
It is said that establishing critical norms in a group improves the quality of d
ecisions, while the majority of opinions (called consensus norms) do not.[19]
Rational and irrational[edit]
In economics, it is thought that if humans are rational and free to make their o
wn decisions, then they would behave according to rational choice theory.[20]:36
8370 Rational choice theory says that a person consistently makes choices that le
ad to the best situation for himself or herself, taking into account all availab
le considerations including costs and benefits; the rationality of these conside
rations is from the point of view of the person himself, so a decision is not ir
rational just because someone else finds it questionable.
In reality, however, there are some factors that affect decision-making abilitie
s and cause people to make irrational decisions for example, to make contradicto
ry choices when faced with the same problem framed in two different ways (see al
so Allais paradox).
Cognitive and personal biases[edit]
Biases usually creep into decision-making processes. Here is a list of commonly
debated biases in judgment and decision-making:
Selective search for evidence (also known as confirmation bias): People tend to
be willing to gather facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other
facts that support different conclusions. Individuals who are highly defensive i
n this manner show significantly greater left prefrontal cortex activity as meas
ured by EEG than do less defensive individuals.[21]
Premature termination of search for evidence: People tend to accept the first al
ternative that looks like it might work.
Cognitive inertia is unwillingness to change existing thought patterns in the fa
ce of new circumstances.
Selective perception: People actively screen out information that they do not th
ink is important (see also Prejudice). In one demonstration of this effect, disc
ounting of arguments with which one disagrees (by judging them as untrue or irre
levant) was decreased by selective activation of right prefrontal cortex.[22]
Wishful thinking is a tendency to want to see things in a certain usually positi
ve light, which can distort perception and thinking.[23]
Choice-supportive bias occurs when people distort their memories of chosen and r
ejected options to make the chosen options seem more attractive.
Recency: People tend to place more attention on more recent information and eith
er ignore or forget more distant information (see Semantic priming). The opposit
e effect in the first set of data or other information is termed primacy effect.
[24][page needed]
Repetition bias is a willingness to believe what one has been told most often an
d by the greatest number of different sources.
Anchoring and adjustment: Decisions are unduly influenced by initial information
that shapes our view of subsequent information.
Groupthink is peer pressure to conform to the opinions held by the group.
Source credibility bias is a tendency to reject a person's statement on the basi
s of a bias against the person, organization, or group to which the person belon
gs. People preferentially accept statement by others that they like (see also Pr
ejudice).
Incremental decision-making and escalating commitment: People look at a decision
as a small step in a process, and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar
decisions. This can be contrasted with zero-based decision-making (see Slippery
slope).
Attribution asymmetry: People tend to attribute their own success to internal fa

ctors, including abilities and talents, but explain their failures in terms of e
xternal factors such as bad luck. The reverse bias is shown when people explain
others' success or failure.
Role fulfillment is a tendency to conform to others' decision-making expectation
s.
Underestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control: People tend to underest
imate future uncertainty because of a tendency to believe they have more control
over events than they really do.
Framing bias: This is best avoided by increasing numeracy and presenting data in
several formats (for example, using both absolute and relative scales).[25]
Sunk-cost fallacy is a specific type of framing effect that affects decision-mak
ing. It involves an individual making a decision about a current situation based
on what they have previously invested in the situation.[20]:372 An example of t
his would be an individual that is refraining from dropping a class that they ar
e most likely to fail, due to the fact that they feel as though they have done s
o much work in the course thus far.
Prospect theory involves the idea that when faced with a decision-making event,
an individual is more likely to take on a risk when evaluating potential losses,
and are more likely to avoid risks when evaluating potential gains. This can in
fluence one's decision-making depending if the situation entails a threat, or op
portunity.[20]:373
Optimism bias is a tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive events oc
curring in the future and underestimate the likelihood of negative life events.[
26] Such biased expectations are generated and maintained in the face of counter
evidence through a tendency to discount undesirable information.[27] An optimis
m bias can alter risk perception and decision-making in many domains, ranging fr
om finance to health.
Reference class forecasting was developed to eliminate or reduce cognitive biase
s in decision-making.