Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Concept Videos

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic01:25

The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic

In order to make good decisions, we use our knowledge and our reasoning. Often, this knowledge and reasoning is sound and solid. However, sometimes, we are swayed by biases or by others manipulating a situation. For example, let’s say you and three friends wanted to rent a house and had a combined target budget of $1,600. The realtor shows you only very run-down houses for $1,600 and then shows you a very nice house for $2,000. Might you ask each person to pay more in rent to get the $2,000...
Confirmation Biases01:31

Confirmation Biases

The confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. For example, if you think that your professor is not very nice, you notice all of the instances of rude behavior exhibited by the professor while ignoring the countless pleasant interactions he is involved in on a daily basis. Have you ever fallen prey to the confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias?
The Availability Heuristic01:08

The Availability Heuristic

A heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, and the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):
Null and Alternative Hypotheses01:16

Null and Alternative Hypotheses

The actual hypothesis testing begins by considering two hypotheses. They are termed  the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As  a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the population that is...
Fundamental Attribution Error01:14

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...
Hindsight Biases01:12

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?

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Including Research Subjects without Decision-Making Capacity Only as Last Resort.

Ethics & human research·2026
Same author

In search of common ground - nephrologists' experiences in preparing and informing patients on the path to end-stage kidney disease.

BMC nephrology·2025
Same author

Understanding Ion Transport in Alkyl Dicarbonates: An Experimental and Computational Study.

ACS physical chemistry Au·2025
Same author

Anabolic Sensitivity in Healthy, Lean, Older Men Is Associated With Higher Expression of Amino Acid Sensors and mTORC1 Activators Compared to Young.

Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle·2024
Same author

Allylation and Thermosetting of Acetosolv Wheat Straw Lignin.

ChemSusChem·2024
Same author

Pharmacokinetics of piperaquine and its association with intermittent malaria preventive therapy outcomes during pregnancy.

BMC pharmacology & toxicology·2024
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 24, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

Empirical fallacies in the debate on substituted judgment.

Mats Johansson1, Linus Broström

  • 1Department of Medical Ethics, Lund University, BMC I12, 221 84, Lund, Sweden, mats.johansson@med.lu.se.

Health Care Analysis : HCA : Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy
|February 28, 2012
PubMed
Summary

The Substituted Judgment Standard guides surrogate decision-makers for incompetent patients. Empirical research does not invalidate this standard, despite common criticisms.

More Related Videos

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 24, 2026

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Bioethics
  • Decision-Making

Background:

  • The Substituted Judgment Standard is a key ethical principle in surrogate decision-making for patients lacking decision-making capacity.
  • This standard mandates that a surrogate decision-maker should make choices reflecting the incompetent patient's prior wishes and values.
  • Despite its importance, the Substituted Judgment Standard faces significant criticism in bioethical discourse.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate common objections to the Substituted Judgment Standard.
  • To examine the validity of criticisms based on empirical research findings.
  • To provide a reasoned defense for retaining the Substituted Judgment Standard in clinical practice and ethical guidelines.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of existing empirical research relevant to surrogate decision-making.
  • Review and critique of prominent philosophical and ethical objections to the Substituted Judgment Standard.
  • Comparative assessment of the Substituted Judgment Standard against alternative ethical frameworks.

Main Results:

  • Empirical evidence often cited against the Substituted Judgment Standard is frequently misinterpreted or misapplied.
  • Specific objections, when examined closely, do not undermine the core principles or practical utility of the standard.
  • The research suggests that criticisms are often based on flawed assumptions rather than robust data.

Conclusions:

  • The Substituted Judgment Standard remains a valuable and ethically defensible framework for surrogate decision-making.
  • Empirical research does not provide sufficient grounds to abandon the Substituted Judgment Standard.
  • Continued adherence to the Substituted Judgment Standard is recommended in cases involving surrogate decision-making for incompetent patients.