Difference between Genders in Decision Making Process - Research Paper Example

Task Difference between Genders in Decision-Making This paper seeks to highlight the different decision-making approaches genders pursue, between strategy selection differences, and difference between non-holistic and holistic decision-making by both genders. The findings show both women and men having some differences and similarities in decision-making aspects and process. Vast differences have always existed between genders, the most perceptible being the physical difference. In recent times, gender equality has grown and people have shifted to seeing women and men as equal beings thus creating an erroneous perception and view that both genders are equal. Differences between genders have conceptualized the perception that males and females share some similar characteristics and more importantly, think the same. Attempts to unearth differences between genders in processes of decision-making have been pursued. Further analysis of these differences aims at assessing if the differences affect practical events and situations. Attempts have also tried to unearth the role of gender in such processes. Theories that try to explain decision-making have been utilized in the quest to explain how human beings make their decisions. These theories include the rational choice approach and they try to dissect the process through which people go through in order to reach specific decisions. Both genders are different from each other and the differences in decision-making are probably because of the sex difference (Kahn 687). Women have been equal to their men counterparts but their participation in decision-making has been low in many countries. Experiments conducted to clarify the differences have focused on comparisons between the genders’ ability to maximize on choices making, differences of decision biases between genders, differences in decision strategies and complexity in tasks (dimension or alternative based), and a comparison of different approaches pursued by both genders. In theoretical Multi-disciplinary dilemma, distinctions between genders have been established in many study areas: Many psychological, neurological, sociological, and economical experiments have portrayed differences between genders. Women have been found to harbor less risk averse than their men counterparts when doing decisions on finances. It is stereotypical to see women as less risk-averse than their men counterparts and subsequently using the biased reason to discriminate women when recruiting people in financial jobs equaling to those pursued by men. In economic conditions that are controlled, it has been established that hazardous decisions are not gender related but are tied to the frame of the decision itself. A study in neurology and psychology has revealed that women have four times as many neurons (brain cells) connecting the brain’s left side hemisphere to the right side hemisphere. Differences also exist in connectivity and chemicals. All this helps in concluding that two kinds of human brains do exist. Women can utilize both hemispheres simultaneously in an easier manner than men can. Women have the ability to focus on a number of problems at a time and they usually prefer solving these problems through a number of activities at any g8iven time. Many parents can testify how their young daughters find conversations with the young boys boring. The young boys tend to express confusion and prefer playing sports than participate fully in a conversation with the girls who can discuss three subjects in a conversation all at once. Another reason why differences exist between men and women in decision-making is the fact that both genders have different brain structures and functioning mechanisms. Research reveals female and male brains come from different blueprints that are generic thus creating a number of anatomical differences. The sizes of a number of structures in female brains are different from males’. Jill Goldstein (Harvard Medical School) set out in the year 2001 with his medical colleagues to measure and compares 45 regions of healthy brains in both genders. They established that frontal lobe’s parts in women were larger than that of men (the frontal lobe houses problem solving, and decision-making functions). The limbic cortex, which controls and regulates emotions, was also seen to be larger in women. Holism explains information amount processed in decision making by an individual, thus it is important to examine the differences that exist between genders’ holistic decision-making. Holistic decision-making is derived from the general systems paradigm/approach and is characterized by its complexity, systematic, openness, and interdependent nature. It considers whole pictures and relates to networking, interplay, and interaction. Non-holistic decision making and thinking is isolationist, simple, and contains no processes of incorporating new attributes. It does not incorporate new attributes that result from elements’ relations. It further looks at only partial attributes and parts and does not have mutual influences. The more information an individual processes, the higher the chances of him/her taking a more holistic approach when making decisions. When the individual processes a limited amount of information and leaves out certain relevant/irrelevant details of information to his/her problem, then the individual is less holistic or even nonholistic. These differences and variabilities have been seen as results of sex-related social stereotypes, and norms transmitted in the form of traditions, values, and behavioral expectations. Coupled with some specific educational factors, their probability to establish and maintain some differences are correlated to certain aspects of making decisions in individuals in specific, the differences between women and men in decision-making. These findings trying to explain the differences in gender decision making are somewhat limited and researchers hold the view that continued investigations into these differences is relevant and appropriate. How decision-making is different between specific ages such as adolescents? Adolescents have demonstrated repeatedly traits of impaired decision-making in situations that are emotionally arousing, and yet appear to have relative mature and informed decision-making techniques and skills in low-arousal situations that are cognitive (Huizenga et al, p.815). A. Decision-making is complex and depends on certain capacities: It is dependent on the reasoning capacity in a decision problem. It also depends on the control capacity to emotional responses that could be aroused by any decision problem. The reasoning capacity about a decision problem is mature among adolescents, whereas the ability to control emotional reactions is seen as immature among adolescents. In specific terms, assumptions have been made to show that there are sharp increases seen in responses emanating from emotions during adolescence this is not paralled by an increase in processes of control (Huizenga et al 818). The result is an emotional overshoot that is linked to imbalance of neural-development between control responses and emotional responses. Brain regions and their related connections experience massive structural and functional changes in the transition from childhood stage to early adulthood. Limbic (emotional) and control (prefrontal) regions in the brain experience varied trajectories of development, for instance, emotional/limbic structures have different developmental trajectories, and the result is prefrontal regions of control developing after limbic structures (Huizenga et al 825). Due to this of this imbalance in development during adolescence, affective situations/events result in emotional responses, which are combined with influences that are immature and are of prefrontal regions of control. Neurobiological model provides the answer to decision-making by adolescents’ expecting to contrast and differ in decision-making that is in low and high-arousing situations. Specifically, it is expected that decision-making by adolescents’ is optimal in cognitive situations compared to affective/high-arousing situations (Huizenga et al 815). Decision-making by adolescents in affective situations (this is, in emotional situations) versus situations that are cognitive (situations with suboptimal emotional consequences) has been examined by various researchers in different studies. A task used in most cases to determine affective making of decisions is Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). As a multidimensional task, the IGT requires reasoning capacity to reason about decision problems that are complex. Moreover, participants face direct confrontation with results that emanate from their decisions and the IGT task seeks to address capacities that control responses of their emotions. Adolescents tend to portray decision-making that is impaired demonstrate impaired as compared to adults. This means that adolescents and children opt for options that look disadvantageous in comparison to adults, in which losses and gains are high. It has been said that adolescents go for short term but high-gain options. However, recent reexaminations of IGT data have suggested that people in the adolescent stage of life do not necessarily focus on gains that are short term but, focus on the urge to avert frequent loss. Therefore, adolescents opt for IGT TASK decks that have the most minimal loss frequencies regardless of them being disadvantageous or advantageous. Concisely, performance of adolescents on the IGT is suboptimal as compared to that of adults subjected to study. Debate looms large on whether the basic focus of adolescents’ decisions is based on attraction leaning towards options that tend to be of high-gains or on the contrary, it is a way of running away from options that tend to have losses in high frequencies. Furthermore, previous studies on IGT have shown that a number of age groups that include adolescents, have manifested variations in performance of IGT. Participants’ decisions in cognitive situations produce not results in consequences that are emotionally consequential (losses or gains). This is because participants are not confronted directly by outcomes that emanate from their decisions. Therefore, these types of situations address reasoning capacities and not the capacity to put under control emotion-driven responses. Cognitive based decision-making that focuses on reasoning abilities that are logical have used paradigms on proportional reasoning. In addition, adolescents around the age of 13 years have portrayed abilities to use proportional interactional techniques that are correct between two-dimensional tasks. These results show that adolescents are good at performing fairly in tasks of proportional reasoning and being capable of understanding use and probability of strategies that are multidimensional in decision problems (Giedd 340). These capacities can be seen as important for choice behavior advantages. Furthermore, adolescents have showed that they cannot differ from their adult counterparts in perception of risks or their capabilities to do evaluations on consequences. Immature cognitive-reasoning techniques and skills that are immature do not account for diminished performance among adolescents’ in affective tasks. However, research conducted on capacities to reason focus on choices that are determined by two dimensions whereas choices in decision-making tasks are dependent on more than two dimensions. For instance, in Iowa Gambling Task, three dimensional-choices characterize the options. Loss frequency, amount lost, and constant gain amounts. Consequentially, conclusions that are firm have not been drawn to conceptualize reasoning capacities in adolescents as regards complex tasks. Therefore, studies have to be initiated to investigate and analyze levels of cognitive making of decisions by adolescents in complex situations. How do experts perform their decision-making in contrast to novices? In decision-making, expertise and decision-making are related in two ways- The first approach was developed by researchers trying to assess how experts made decisions. The second approach constituted researchers investigating whether individuals can become experts in decision-making. In sum, the researchers sought to determine if there is existence of expertise in decision-making or competence in decision-making. This was opposed to any specific domain expertise (Gobet 19). A number of researchers came up with the naturalistic approach on decision-making, which entails examining behavior in real world making of decisions. Of particular interest, was their study of decisions that were made by experts who were pressured with time. This approach shed light decision-making questions. The striking result was experts could comprehend situational problems and make decisions in rapid manner, as matter of fact, make decisions in seconds. With problems that are a routine, decisions are mostly correct or to say the least, they are reasonable (Kahn 700). This phenomenon is called intuition and was first documented with chess players/masters and then uncovered in domains like physics, nursing, management, fire fighting, and decision making in situational combat. It is accepted that experts with cumulated years of training and practices unlike novices have acquired rapid making of decisions. Experts consider one action course that they carry out, thus not choosing among two or three options that can be pursued. This is contrary to utility theory. This approach has been successful wherever/whenever applied. Theory of Expert Competence: Its chief proponent, Shanteau brought forward proposals that subjected experts to making competent decisions and judgments in solving tasks that are characterized by unequivocal features. The tasks are static, making it possible for the experts to comprehend the constituents of vital stimuli. They are broken down into sub problems, which propel higher their predictability levels. They are repetitive, and errors will happen often (Gobet 19). Compensation is by the possibility of obtaining feedback to examine task objectives. Finally, decisions are made to solve problems on things, and not behavior. Aids on decisions can also be used. Experts do not judge competently tasks that have features that are opposite (Martens 277). This approach has two features that contribute to understanding decision-making in human beings. In Simon’s expertise approach, experts participate in studying it. A student is prone to making incoherent decisions touching on specific topics: but humans are not always irrational. Lack of rationality can be identified if experts make unreliable judgements/decisions in their line of work. Furthermore, analysis carried out by Shanteau of the tasks where date was obtained, helps to comprehend why competency varies between experts and novices. Works Cited Gobet, Fernand. Chess players’ thinking revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 18–32.1998 Giedd, Jay, The teen brain: Insights from neuroimaging. Journal of Adolescent Healt h, 42(4),pp 335–343.2008 Huizenga, Hilde. & Jansen, Brenda. Decision-making in healthy children, adolescents, and adults explained by the use of increasingly complex proportional reasoning rules. Developmental Science, 10(6), 814–825. 2007 Martens, Martins. The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology Research. Vie Counseling Psychologist, 33, pp 269-298. 2005 Kahn, Jeffrey, Factor analysis in counseling psychology research, training, and practice: Principles, advances, and applications. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 684-718.2008 Read More