The Affect Heuristic

Abstract The experimental part of the human mind has the ability to tag objects and experiences with emotions. These tags are defined as somatic markers in Paul Slovic et al.’s paper on the affect heuristic. The affect heuristic is using the somatic markers as a short-cut to make quick decisions or judgments. This can be done consciously, but in most cases, it is done unconsciously, even before the mind has had the time to think up rational justification. With enough experience and knowledge, this method of making decisions can be highly efficient and flexible – especially when it is used consciously

However, affect can easily be manipulated. Bounded rationality is the process where we make a decision that will satisfy rather than optimize a situation, while bounded awareness is our ability to filter information and impressions . Both limit the efficiency of our decisions since it keeps the mind from realizing all possible outcomes. Also, our environment can manipulate the information we get and how it is presented. This also affects how we feel about situations and outcomes.

The somatic markers also offer the ability to anticipate outcomes , which means it is useful in risk management. If the decision-maker has had a similar experience to the situation they are analyzing, they can quickly use the affect heuristic to identify risks, their probability, and their impact. People also tend to perceive risk and benefit differently from reality. Rationally high risk can yield high reward and vice versa. However, most people find that when their personal benefit is high enough, the risk is less . Therefore, it is essential to know what lies behind decisions. Understanding how the mind makes decisions can help backtrack bad decisions or even prevent them since the decision-maker is now aware of his/her bias. This article will combine the theory and discoveries from Slovic et al.’s definition of the affect heuristic with project management theories and standards to explain how it occurs in a project management setting.

Background

There exists a huge amount of literature on how decisions should be made in project management. Mostly the frameworks describe a procedure where the decision-maker takes his/her time with communicating with experts, gathering knowledge, discussing with group members, being challenged on their view, and come up with all alternatives and their potential outcome to then spending time on, i.e., a multi-criteria decision analysis. But what do we do when one person has a minute or maybe seconds to decide? In that case, it is important to be mindful about what influences our decisions and how our mind works when it comes to prioritizing and judging. One of the influences comes from affect, and the way the brain uses it in judgment and decision-making is called the affect heuristic.

Paul Slovic et al. described the Affect Heuristic concept in 2002, with the idea that “images, marked by positive or negative affective feelings, guide judgment” . This article makes use of Slovic’s definition of affect:

“… affect means the specific quality of “goodness” or “badness” (i) experienced as a feeling state (with or without consciousness) and (ii) demarcating a positive or negative quality of a stimulus.” 

The basic idea is that most people are able to tag memories or situations with varying degrees of affect. These markers can be used as short-cuts in decision-making. These tags are described as somatic markers. When a situation triggers a memory, the somatic marker is used to anticipate if the outcome will be positive or negative. Affective reactions to stimuli are often the very first reaction and mostly happens unconsciously. This means that we usually have made an assumption or decision about a situation before we even know it. This ability can, in some cases, be easier and more efficient to use than having to go through a whole decision framework, and knowing how it works, can be valuable in situations where time is limited.

Affect is part of the descriptive decision study. It helps to describe how we actually make a decision in contrast to the prescriptive decision study, which develops methods for making optimal decisions (2 pp. 5). Knowing how we actually make decisions can help us realize what keeps us from making the optimal decisions despite knowing the frameworks for optimal decision making. We prefer things that make us feel good and often make decisions based on that, then afterward try to rationalize it. Affect also plays a large role in motivation. We usually are more motivated to do something we know that we like or prefer to something we do not like.

Gathering and sharing information while making judgments and decisions is a big part of a project manager or a project team’s role. The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) states how important it is for the project manager to possess knowledge and experience about the project they are managing and their environment like their organization, stakeholders, competition, etc. (4 pp. 59). This is important not just in their decision-making but also in many different aspects of their project (i.e., internal and external communication). In a situation where the decision is based on autocracy (4 pp. 144), the project manager might have to rely on his/her own experience, which is usually influenced by the affect heuristic. So being mindful about the bias that comes with affect, might help him/her being more rational. Because of the numerous standards and frameworks that have been created on how to optimally execute a project, organizations sometimes forget to let the project manager and team use their personal experience. This is usually difficult to measure and document, so it might be considered bias. But it is a mistake to discard affect completely since it has the potential to lead to creativity and innovation – mostly to avoid situations that have been anticipated to have a negative outcome.

Limitations of the Affect Heuristic

The affect heuristic is, as mentioned, something that often happens unconsciously in our minds. Affect comes from how the person perceives situations from different perspectives and contexts. This means that there are several ways it can be manipulated, which limits the effectiveness depending on the affect heuristic in decision-making.

Bounded awareness and rationality

The human brain receives an enormous amount of information every single day. To avoid information overload, the brain must filter through all this information. This happens unconsciously and depends on the person’s energy level, health, interests, and many other factors what information gets stored (2 pp. 61). Since the information includes the somatic markers, the affect heuristic is already very limited by our own ability to store information efficiently. The following describes various tendencies that lie within the bounded awareness term (2 pp. 65).

Inattentional blindness describes our failure to see the obvious in a situation (2 pp. 65). This might cause a project manager to overlook important information or opportunities within his/her project. We only see what we are looking for, so an optimistic project manager might only look for opportunities and successes while missing vital warning signs that could lead to emerging threats. This is also part of the tendency of blindness to change. We are more prone to realize visual changes and overlook changes in our environment (2 pp. 68). This includes but is not limited to project team members’ behavior and stakeholder values, and social changes.

Focalism is a term used for describing the tendency where people focus too much on a specific event or situation and too little on situations that occur more frequently. The consequence is that people will overestimate the degree of impact the focal event will have on our “future thoughts” and emotional response (2 pp. 67). We tend to expect that one big event will have a more significant impact on us than many smaller events, and this can be highly ineffective when it comes to affective forecasting. Another consequence is the focusing illusion. This illusion describes the tendency to overweight the information we have been focusing on and underweight the neglected information (2 pp. 68). In many cases, decision-making in a group setting comes with many advantages. The group can share critical information and discuss their experience. However, a study from 1985 showed that group discussion “… tended to increase the recall of information that supported the initially most popular (and ultimately winning) candidate even though this information was primarily shared before the discussion.” (7 pp. 1476). This will also limit the information needed to make the right decision based on the affect heuristic.

The lack of information keeps us from evaluating all possible outcomes and thereby trying to simplify the decision, which leads to making a choice that will satisfy the stakeholders but might not optimize the project outcome. This is called bounded rationality and is an example of the lazy human brain. It confirms that we tend to deviate from rationality if we haven’t been given a decision-making framework, which encourages the project team to gather the necessary information and explore where information is lacking.

The more relevant information that has been stored, the more precise is the somatic marker. More precise somatic markers provide better impression formation, judgment, and decision making (1 pp. 1342).

How we perceive risk and benefit

Another limitation is how we perceive risk and reward. It has been found that our perception of risk and benefit is negatively correlated (1 pp. 1342). This means that an outcome with high benefit yields a low risk in many judgment situations and vice versa. An example would be a person who decides if they should smoke again to seem cool. For them, the benefit of fitting in with the rest of the group might be significant enough to make the risk of lung cancer seem small. This is interesting since high risk usually yields high reward and low risk yields low reward. The same goes for when a decision maker must choose between several alternatives. A study from 2020 done by Slovic et al. verified, that the affect heuristic drives judgement in risk and benefit both in a situation with several alternatives to choose between, and in a situation where a single option is evaluated (8 pp. 4). It has also been found that this negative correlation would be enhanced under time pressure (1 pp. 1344).

Annotated Bibliography

Bazerman, M. & Moore, D. (2013): Judgment in Managerial Decision Making.
Judgment in Managerial Decision Making is a book that summarizes the various aspects of descriptive decision-making practice. Chapter 4, which describes bounded awareness, has been used to understand how people unconsciously filter information to avoid information overload and simplify complex decisions. The book also covers bias, overconfidence, commitment, and motivation while also discussing how to improve decision-making from a people perspective. Most importantly, it introduces judgment heuristics, including the affect heuristic.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007): The Affect Heuristic. Reprinted from Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (2002), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment.

Project Management Institute, Inc. (2017): Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th Edition). Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI).
The book provides a framework for how to execute a project, program, or portfolio in theory. These methods and the use of standards should be incorporated in project management practice, mainly to avoid a situation where the affect heuristic is the optimal way of making a decision. However, it fails to describe how anything that involves people is, to some degree, unpredictable. Though it is possible to be prepared with a robust but flexible plan, unanticipated events will happen. It also fails to describe how to handle a situation where the project manager must think fast since it assumes that there will always be time for going through a process of requesting changes, which might not always be the case.

References

Current -> May change