For particularly important decisions, consider contemplating them at different times, if you can. Think about one thing Monday morning, then Wednesday afternoon, then Saturday evening, going only to the point of getting an overall feel for an answer, and not to the point of really making a solid conclusion.
This seems congruent with the folk idea of “sleeping on” difficult or particularly important decisions rather than coming to a decision on the spot, and with the legal practice of having “cooling off periods” after a purchase is made or a contract is signed, during which one party can void the agreement.
This seems congruent with the folk idea of “sleeping on” difficult or particularly important decisions rather than coming to a decision on the spot
Very often, however, the immediate judgment is the most representative of the individual’s honest opinion on any given topic. “Sleeping on” things is only useful when there is additional data to be reviewed before making said decision. Once you’ve already got all your givens, there’s nowhere to go but to their conclusion.
Very often, however, the immediate judgment is the most representative of the individual’s honest opinion
The OP has already cited an important counterexample to this generalization. Others include anchoringandpriming. Sleeping on a decision, cooling off after making it, or otherwise delaying its finality has benefits other than allowing one to review “additional data.” It can change the way you think about a decision without adding more information, and this change might be to the good if it counteracts one of the effects mentioned above.
The OP has already cited an important counterexample to this generalization.
… I would disagree with that entirely. I’d be highly surprised if a statistically relevant random selection size of judges, after being informed of the ‘meal break distance’ bias, would believe that it applied to any particular case they had decided.
Unless you have additional information—new postulates—whatever your conclusion was originally will remain your conclusion thereafter. If you get “primed” into thinking that it was colder yesterday than you normally would have, you will still believe that it was cold yesterday—even if “primed” into thinking that the same temperature is “hot” today.
This seems congruent with the folk idea of “sleeping on” difficult or particularly important decisions rather than coming to a decision on the spot, and with the legal practice of having “cooling off periods” after a purchase is made or a contract is signed, during which one party can void the agreement.
Very often, however, the immediate judgment is the most representative of the individual’s honest opinion on any given topic. “Sleeping on” things is only useful when there is additional data to be reviewed before making said decision. Once you’ve already got all your givens, there’s nowhere to go but to their conclusion.
The OP has already cited an important counterexample to this generalization. Others include anchoring and priming. Sleeping on a decision, cooling off after making it, or otherwise delaying its finality has benefits other than allowing one to review “additional data.” It can change the way you think about a decision without adding more information, and this change might be to the good if it counteracts one of the effects mentioned above.
… I would disagree with that entirely. I’d be highly surprised if a statistically relevant random selection size of judges, after being informed of the ‘meal break distance’ bias, would believe that it applied to any particular case they had decided.
Unless you have additional information—new postulates—whatever your conclusion was originally will remain your conclusion thereafter. If you get “primed” into thinking that it was colder yesterday than you normally would have, you will still believe that it was cold yesterday—even if “primed” into thinking that the same temperature is “hot” today.