Cognitive biases and judgment · 6/6
Integrated revision: preserve your first judgment, then update
Produce a decision record with an initial view, contrary evidence, future costs and review triggers.
About 15–20 minutes. The following cases are fictional.
Record your first judgment
A book club has spent 12 preparation hours on an online event. A leader first says two more hours; a task list later suggests 8–12. You read only positive online-event accounts and recall one poorly attended in-person meeting, concluding online must be better.
Understand the judgment process
Several risks can coexist, but naming biases is not the goal. Connect each risk to an action: broaden searches, estimate independently, inspect attendance records and compare future effort.
Additional material: the last four in-person attendance rates were 70%, 75%, 20% and 80%; the low event coincided with transport disruption. The last online event attracted 18/30 participants. These records do not establish stable superiority.
A simplified online pilot needs 3 more hours, the full online event 8–12 and an in-person option 4. The aim is participation and discussion, with online interaction quality unmeasured.
Checks you can perform
- Record an initial view, confidence and goal before reading the explanation.
- Identify at least two reasoning risks and evidence that could distinguish explanations.
- Compare future time, access and interaction quality; list the past 12 hours separately.
- Choose provisionally, defining observable triggers to stop, expand or change.
Guided practice
Write a provisional decision addressing two risks. Explain why the shortest preparation time is not sufficient by itself.
Explore the explanation
A 3-hour pilot is reasonable if you first check availability and define interaction goals. Replace the unsupported two-hour anchor with the task list and one memorable failure with all four records. Past effort does not justify the full version. If members cannot participate online, time savings miss the goal and the choice should change. Other choices can be defensible with evidence and constraints.
Apply it in a new context
New information: 8 of 20 confirmed participants cannot use the platform. Changing platforms takes five more hours. Append a revision rather than overwriting the initial record.
Compare after attempting
Date the new constraint. The pilot may now require eight hours, and the alternative platform must actually solve access problems. Recompare in-person or other feasible options rather than defending the earlier choice. The eight people are from confirmed participants, not automatically all members.
Preserve a revision record
A completed record does not demonstrate immunity to bias. Review actual outcomes later and retain initial judgments when evidence supports them.
Check whether you supplied inspectable evidence, a feasible next step and revision conditions. Revealing an answer is not mastery.
Source and scope
Lord, Lepper & Preston (1984), Considering the opposite
The source provides conceptual or methodological background. Cases, steps and exercises are authored here; they are not the original experiment or evidence of this course’s effectiveness.
Completion is a personal record, not proof of mastery or certification.