Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Decision Making

Decision Making

Decision-making is a fundamental cognitive process that involves evaluating alternatives and selecting among them. This process can range from simple choices, such as deciding what to wear, to complex decisions, like choosing a major in college or a career path. The complexity of the decision often dictates the approach we use, which can be broadly categorized into two types: automatic and controlled decision-making.
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...

Reason and Intuition

Reason and Intuition

The human brain processes information for decision-making using one of two routes: an intuitive system and a rational system (Epstein, 1994; popularized by Kahneman, 2011 as System 1 and System 2, respectively). The intuitive system is quick, impulsive, and operates with minimal effort, relying on emotions or habits to provide cues for what to do next, while the rational system is logical, analytical, deliberate, and methodical. Research in neuropsychology suggests that the brain can only use...

Groupthink

Groupthink

When in group settings, we are often influenced by the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors around us. Groupthink is another phenomenon of conformity where modification of the opinions of members in a group aligns with what they believe is the group consensus (Janis, 1972). In such situations, the group often takes action that individuals would not perform outside the group setting because groups make more extreme decisions than individuals do. Moreover, groupthink can hinder opposing trains of...

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now?

Fundamental Attribution Error

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...

The Representativeness Heuristic

The Representativeness Heuristic

The representative heuristic describes a biased way of thinking, in which you unintentionally stereotype someone or something. For example, you may assume that your professors spend their free time reading books and engaging in intellectual conversation, because the idea of them spending their time playing volleyball or visiting an amusement park does not fit in with your stereotypes of professors.

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Molecular identification of Kudoa thyrsites parasite isolated from Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) landed in Ireland.

Parasitology research·2026

Same author

Sickle cell disease 115 years later: improving health outcomes through policy, research, and collaboration, to achieve health equity.

Frontiers in health services·2026

Same author

Geographic and Temporal Differences in Sickle Cell Disease Hospitalizations in New York State.

JAMA network open·2026

Same author

Newborn enrolment, engagement, and immunisation in primary care: a qualitative study of healthcare providers' perspectives.

Journal of primary health care·2026

Same author

Revisiting FLAIR vascular hyperintensity: from flow disturbance to vessel wall disease.

European radiology·2026

Same author

Platelet-neutrophil ratio as a potential biomarker for stroke risk stratification in children and young adults with sickle cell anaemia in resource poor settings.

Annals of hematology·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 25, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

Why good leaders make bad decisions.

Andrew Campbell¹, Jo Whitehead, Sydney Finkelstein

¹Ashridge Strategic Management Centre, London, UK. andrew.campbell@ashridge.org.uk

Harvard Business Review

|February 21, 2009

Summary

Intelligent decisions can be flawed due to brain processes like pattern recognition and emotional tagging. Organizations can mitigate these biases by identifying "red-flag conditions" and implementing safeguards.

Area of Science:

Cognitive Neuroscience
Organizational Behavior
Decision Science

Background:

Decision-making is crucial in personal and professional life.
Despite best intentions, important decisions are often flawed.
Brain's hard-wired processes (pattern recognition, emotional tagging) can lead to errors.

Purpose of the Study:

Identify conditions causing flawed judgment.
Explore organizational safeguards against decision-making errors.
Provide actionable strategies for leaders to counteract biases.

Main Methods:

Analysis of cognitive biases in decision-making.
Delineation of three "red-flag conditions" (conflicts of interest, attachments, misleading memories).
Case study of a global chemical company to illustrate countermeasures.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 25, 2026

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Errors as a Means of Reducing Impulsive Food Choice

Published on: June 5, 2016

Main Results:

Identified three "red-flag conditions" that distort judgment.
Demonstrated how these conditions lead to flawed pattern recognition and emotional tagging.
Outlined leader-led strategies to counteract biases: fresh analysis, increased debate, stronger governance.

Conclusions:

Organizational decision-making is susceptible to cognitive biases.
Explicitly identifying and addressing "red-flag conditions" is essential.
Implementing safeguards like fresh perspectives, debate, and governance improves decision quality.