This paper examines two primary approaches to decision making: heuristic thinking and algorithm-based analysis. It begins by defining heuristics as cognitive shortcuts — both conscious and unconscious — that allow individuals to make rapid judgments without exhausting mental resources. The paper then explores algorithmic decision making, highlighting how advanced analytics can automate complex processes and improve accuracy. Finally, it weighs the two methods against each other, drawing on psychological research to argue that heuristic decision making holds particular advantages in high-stakes scenarios involving potential loss, as it engages critical thinking and reflective self-regulation. The paper references foundational work by Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier alongside insights from Hammond, Keeney, and Raiffa.
Heuristics are useful cognitive processes — conscious or unconscious — that deliberately ignore some available information. Because heuristic thinking does not require extensive mental effort, the classical perspective has been that decisions produced by such processes result in greater errors than do "rational" decisions based on statistical or logical models. However, numerous real-world decisions do not meet rational model assumptions, and it is often an empirical question rather than an a priori one as to how well heuristics function in an uncertain world (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011).
Proper application of cognitive heuristics is vital for day-to-day survival. One would exhaust himself mentally and achieve very little if every judgment required full-scale reflective deliberation. As humans, we navigate the routine parts of daily life by making quick, involuntary reactive judgments — that is, heuristic thinking. We rely on these snap judgments for three key reasons: (a) such judgments are often sufficiently accurate for the purpose at hand; (b) we need to conserve mental energy for bigger, less familiar, and more important problems we may encounter; and (c) most of the time we simply do not have enough time for deeper reflective thought (Facione & Gittens, n.d.).
Advanced technological analytics have the capability of automating segments of the decision-making sequence, offering faster, better-informed decisions at significantly lower cost. However, unless an organization is prepared to transform the way its people work across the entire decision-making process, results are likely to disappoint. Nowadays, an algorithm can combine and analyze a multitude of data points — lengthy demographic records and extensive payment histories, for example — far beyond what any human analyst could handle. Using these data points, the algorithm can sort accounts into simple, identifiable categories, such as green, yellow, or red (Mankins & Sherer, 2014).
These new human-algorithm decision processes will likely require significant investments in technology, including software that incorporates rules and decision logic into normal workflow systems. They will also entail reassigning employees to fit new roles within those systems. There may be a need for new skills, which could involve retraining existing personnel or hiring fresh talent. When well executed, algorithmic decision making can greatly enhance decision quality and lead to greater employee and customer satisfaction. However, analytics alone will not achieve these results; changing the underlying decision process — including retraining people — remains essential (Mankins & Sherer, 2014).
"Argues heuristics excel in high-stakes, time-sensitive decisions"
"Cited sources supporting the paper's claims"
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.