Study: Agents like Snowden prone to irrational decision making

U.S. intelligence agents – like the embattled Edward Snowden – are more prone to irrational inconsistencies in decision making when compared to college students and post-college adults. That's according a new Cornell University study to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science.

The study found intelligence agents exhibited larger on 30 gain-loss framing decisions, and were also more confident in those decisions. Thirty-six agents were recruited for the study from an anonymous federal agency, and were presented with scenarios such as:

  • The U.S. is preparing for the of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Do you: Save 200 people for sure, or choose the option with 1/3 probability that 600 will be saved and a 2/3 probability no one will be saved?
  • In the same scenario, do you pick the option where 400 will surely die, or instead a 2/3 probability that all 600 will die and a 1/3 probability no one dies?

The results showed agents treated equivalent outcomes differently based on superficial wording. They were more willing than college students to take risks with human lives when outcomes were framed as losses.

These results shed light on the decision-making mechanisms of intelligence agents who identify and mitigate risks to national security, said Valerie Reyna, Cornell professor of human development and psychology, and lead author of the study. Like some other laboratory gambling tasks, framing effects have been shown to predict real-world behavior, Reyna added.

Reyna also said these results suggest that meaning and context play a larger role in -making as experts gain experience. That experience can enhance performance, but also has predictable pitfalls.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Book on teen brains can help improve decision making

Dec 16, 2011

Teenage brains undergo big changes, and they won't look or function like adult brains until well into one's 20s. In the first book on the adolescent brain and development of higher cognition, a Cornell professor ...

Why are Internet anti-vaccine messages dangerous

Jul 19, 2011

Evidence has long shown routine vaccines to be safe and effective, but a growing community of critics still claims that they pose more danger than the diseases they prevent. A Google search of "vaccine," for example, produces ...

Recommended for you

Elderly brains learn, but maybe too much

3 hours ago

A new study led by Brown University reports that older learners retained the mental flexibility needed to learn a visual perception task but were not as good as younger people at filtering out irrelevant ...

Inpatient psychotherapy is effective in Germany

6 hours ago

Sarah Liebherz (Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf) and Sven Rabung (Institute of Psychology, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt) have examined 59 studies conducted between 1977 ...

A game changer to boost literacy and maths skills

8 hours ago

(Medical Xpress)—Finding the best way to teach reading has been an ongoing challenge for decades, especially for those children in underprivileged areas who fail to learn to read. What is the magic ingredient that will ...

How do we make moral judgements?

9 hours ago

In a target article published in the current issue of the American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB) Neuroscience, Université de Montréal and IRCM neuroethics experts open the black box of moral intuitions by suggesting a new ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

neversaidit
5 / 5 (1) Jul 09, 2013
"agents like snowden"? what am i reading, the sun?!?

and as usual, no link to the study. this site is getting less professional with every hour.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Jul 10, 2013
An agent will know how the blame will flow for particular outcomes and make their decisions based on that eg if you save 200 but let 400 die and newspapers find out then the agency will be hammered for letting those people die and it will be equated with murder.

This comes because the question asks "would you.." and so the person naturally takes into account their own situation and the likely consequences for a particular result.

For instance in the 1/3 all live vs 2/3 all die condition the papers will assume that nothing could be done if they all die and that the agency is a hero if all live. This is a better outcome when those extended conditions are considered. Students would have no idea or experience of these extended conditions and so make decisions based purely on the probability of various outcomes and ignore ongoing consequences, the very issue essential for responsible agents to consider!!!

You would expect young inexperienced people to fail to see the bigger picture.
Wolf358
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2013
Propaganda courtesy of Cornell? Shame!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.