Are you sure you aren’t being gamed?

None of us want to believe we have been taken advantage of. For example, when you went into that clothing store for a new shirt how and why did you walk out with two new suits and two new shirts? How did that salesperson convince you to spend three times more than you had anticipated when you walked into the store? Were you gamed or did the salesperson simply surface and satisfy meet needs of which you are previously unaware? 

When we debrief respondents in our qualitative procedure, here are some of the things we have learned about being gamed. These are not quantitative studies but idiosyncratic results meant to be neither exhaustive nor definitive.

You’re more susceptible to be gamed by someone else when -

1. You’re in a hurry. The “hurry” may have nothing to do with getting from one place to another but rather the amount of time you feel you have to make a decision. In these cases the perceived length of time for the decision impacts the value of the decision. Its best example is the “limited time offer.”

2. Your perceived need driving a decision is great. In these cases the expected gain is perceived as both the result of the decision and the minimization of time required to make the decision and obtain its result.  In other words, the longer it takes to obtain the result of the decision, the more its value declines. This is a recency bias. 

3. Your position of authority or rank is questioned. In these cases there appears to be perceived value not only in the result of the decision but also by not appearing to lose “face.” This is endowment bias perhaps best characterized by the parental rationale epithet, “…because I say so.” Interestingly, when the decision appears to confirm status or rank, it is confirmation bias, as the gradations of airline frequency programs signal gradations of wait times to board with the most elite boarding first.

4. You feel “down” and feel like you need a “win.” In these cases the value of the decision may appear enhanced by factors unelated to the decision. This is a frame or situational bias. Repetitive live TV purchasing by those with limited social interaction may be an example.

5. You feel like you’re being interrogated prior to making the decision. We have all been to a car dealership when the salesman wants to “get to know you.” What he or she is actually doing is searching for the best basis (bias) on which you can be sold (gamed).

6. Your social status appears lesser than your peers and is in some way “recoverable” with a decision. This is actually a form of reciprocity bias and is often characterized as entitlement bias.  Early TV ads for smoking clearly used this mechanism, making smokers appear “cool” and more socially attractive.

7. The rationale for the decision appears to -

• Enhance your own social value by denigrating others for making the opposite choice. This is what we call aggrandizement bias, a cousin of endowment bias. Implying that your decision “…is better than” someone else is the often used appeal.
• Be little more than your own position retold to support another decision. In other words, the only rationale for the decision is that it confirms one you have made in advance. This is a common example of confirmation bias often used by politicians in the form of “…if you believe in ‘that,’ then you have to believe in ‘this.’”
• Be based on “being like me” or ”not being like me.” In these cases the value of identification or rejection of someone else or some other group adds value to the result of the decision itself. This is just another form of confirmation bias.

Why are we susceptible to these often illogical and prejudicial sources of apparent value when making decisions? The answer is that these “other” decision components simplify the decision process; they make it easier for us to select a choice alternative. So, the reality is that we are “our own worst enemy” in being susceptible to such ploys. Does it make a difference? We can all recall when we recognized that we were being gamed and allowed someone else to apply one or more of these biases to our own decision making. The real problem is when we do not realize when we are being manipulated, or “not knowing” what we “don’t know.”

How can we ever be fully aware of all of the biases to which we may be susceptible?  The answer is probably “no.” However, it is likely that by realizing some of the “traps” we can come “closer” to being in charge of our own decisions. In each of the biases described above the common component is that of “accrued value,” that is, value added to the expected result of the decision but coming from some other source, such as social status or competency, self-image, group affiliation, or something else. The point is that this value is believed to be “added on” to the value of the choice result.    

So the real issue becomes one of being “sufficiently sensitive” to perceive the sources of accrued value and consciously allowing them to enter into your decision calculation or not. We will offer some strategies for accomplishing this in a note to follow.