首页> 外文会议>International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics >Statistics of a variety of cognitive biases in decision making in crucial accident analyses
【24h】

Statistics of a variety of cognitive biases in decision making in crucial accident analyses

机译:在关键事故分析中决策中各种认知偏见的统计

获取原文

摘要

Due to bounded rationality, we cannot make decision rationally. Our cognitive information processing is conducted by System1 or System2. While System2 requires us to conduct effortful, demanding and deliberate mental activities, System1 operates quickly, automatically, without time consuming, and intuitively with little or no efforts. Although heuristic approaches that we adopt when we have no time to deliberate are based on System1, and are very simple and intuitive, such approaches constantly suffer from cognitive biases. In this study, using about 190 crucial accident analyses, it was explored how cognitive biases are include as a major causes of crucial accidents. It has been clarified that optimistic bias and loss aversion are more frequently observed in the range of this study. In conclusion, we are susceptible to cognitive biases, and never behave rationally. Due to such property (irrationality), we repeatedly commit similar error as we see in the statistical analysis of 190 cases of crucial accidents. This means that how we actually behave (irrationality) is more important than how we should behave (rationality).
机译:由于有界合理性,我们无法理性地做出决定。我们的认知信息处理由System1或System2进行。虽然System2要求我们进行努力,要求苛刻和刻意的心理活动,但系统1在没有耗时的情况下快速,自动运行,而直观地运行,而且没有努力。虽然我们采用的启发式方法,但我们没有时间审议的时候是基于System1,并且非常简单直观,这些方法不断遭受认知偏见。在本研究中,使用大约190个关键的事故分析,探讨了认知偏倚是如何包括至关重要事故的主要原因。澄清了在本研究范围内更常见地观察到乐观的偏差和损失厌恶。总之,我们易受认知偏见的影响,并且从不表现得合理。由于此类财产(非理性),我们在190例关键事故的统计分析中反复提出类似的错误。这意味着我们如何实际行为(非理性)比我们应该如何行事(合理性)更重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号