Investigative Principles: Analysis of Decision-Making Processes

This report delves into the investigative principles and decision-making processes, particularly within the context of business development and organizational research. It explores the concept of intuitive synthesis, emphasizing the role of gut feeling, experience, and judgment in critical business decisions, especially in the face of increasing data availability and analytical tools. The report analyzes the decision-making process through three phases: pre-decision (information gathering), decision (choice selection), and post-decision (assessment). It also discusses factors influencing decision-making, such as problem complexity, situational context, and individual preferences, highlighting how investigators navigate risk and collect evidence. The report examines the interplay between the emotional and rational brain, arguing that intuitive decision-making is often crucial, especially in complex, ill-defined situations. The report further reviews the integrated logical and intuitive decision-making models, the influence of intuition on managers, and challenges in objectively assessing the phenomenon. The report concludes that intuition plays a vital role in business decision-making.

Running head: INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
Investigative Principles
Name of Student:
Name of University:
Author’s Note:

1INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Analysis...........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................10

2INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
Introduction
Intuitive synthesis is recognized as a concept which has been able to create a significant
effect on “mainstream organizational research”. It needs to be further discerned that there is no
well-established indicator for the intuitive synthesis. However, the conceptualization is identified
with three operative indicators which includes dependency on judgment, reliance on experience
and gut feeling. The gut feeling is considered as the third most important facet of intuitive
synthesis. Several researchers have been able to suggest that the intuition manifest itself acts as
gut feeling. Several studies have been able to suggest that intuition is the process of “feeling out
the problem or trusting one’s gut-feeling”. Some of the most evident empirical research has
suggested that some people feel in their “stomach – gut-feeling” (Defoe et al., 2015). Executive
interviews have referred intuition as a sense of “growing excitement in the pit of the stomach or
gut-feeling, or a burst of enthusiasm and energy”. The constant initiative for adopting innovation
to achieve competitive differences and regardless of proliferation of data, many businesses have
continued to “make critical business decisions” which form a part of intuition rather than logical
decision making. It has been observed that a majority of the decisions are relied on gut feeling.
The main rationale for such a trend is seen with availability of the advanced business analytics,
optimization method and quantitative methods. The use of several types of quantitative and data
analysis to support system has removed the for ambiguity, improve speed and accuracy (Costa et
al., 2014).
Different types of research studies have been able to suggest that 40% of the major
decisions relies on the managers gut rather than facts. It needs to be understood that the “science
of decision-making” is comparatively new but current research has confirmed that “decision-
making” processes far more complex than “mix of reason, intuition and emotion” which was
thought earlier. In terms of the conventional view the intricate decisions entail excluding the
emotional contributions to give priority to “rational thought and systematic fact-based
reasoning”. Some of the others are studies suggested that the conservative understanding about
“decision-making” may be opposite of the actual events. It is the easy problems which are suited
in a better manner for rational brain and more intricate problems best suited for the expressive

3INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
brain. Henceforth, if we rely on motive alone it could be almost impossible to decide anything at
all.
Analysis
In psychological approach, it is analysed that the “decision-making” process is separated
into three stages namely the “pre-decision phase” which involves information collection and
problem formulation. As stated by Huys et al. (2015), the second phase is known as the decision
phase which states the choice midst formerly clear options and the “post decision phase” which
identifies the assessment of decisions made. The basic criterions involved in the pre-decision
phase includes identifying the problem and defining the discrepancy between exists between the
present state and the desired state. This situation of dilemma is faced by the investigators while
making a choice which can be considered as per varied criteria such as conjunction (“when the
desired state is relatively well defined and just one solution is possible”), complexity (“when
more complex problems require processing a considerable amount of data and generating their
mental representation in a form of a mental model”) and definiteness (when the problems are
defined in an orderly manner and that is that information is available for gold, circumstances and
terms of acceptability for future solutions). It has been further discerned that the sediment
process of dilemma can be attained by decreasing the “gap between” a “hardly satisfying starting
point and a desired target point”. A fundamental aspect of problem-solving condition is
considered with planning is involved within the mining the problem media in a methodical
manner and considering those actions which is required for searching of the solution to the
required budget and attention (Ding, Simulation, & Liu, 2014).
The planning method is further identified with modelling and analogizing. The modelling
arranges the sequence of actions involving “mental space and analogizing” uses the correlation
in one particular section to give solution to difficulties in another area. The plan creation is
conditioned with three basic factors which includes identification of the intricacy of the problem
that determines the participation of cognitive system, the impact of situational and environmental
context and individual preferences. At the time of defining problem the investigators considered
the boundary conditions by understanding limitations which are “imposed on future choices”.

4INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
The investigators are also able to mark out the risk level which is tolerable in given situation of
time. In general, more investigators tend to admit a higher acceptable risk then purchasing less
valuable goods and to artist fan “goods to be purchased are expensive” (Lerner et al., 2015).
Another noteworthy activity during the pre-decision phase involves collection of
evidence about the problem especially which acts as possible options as solutions. The “decision-
makers” can search for the data in various types of sources which includes external sources such
as Internet sites are internal sources such as semantic are episodic memories. In the decision
phase there are choices as per the previously defined options as available. This is identified as a
“step-by-step” process which enables for the “choice of one option” to be more and more
favoured in compared to others. Henceforth, it is increasingly bitter justified to be a rational and
subjective consideration which is more reliable. Nevertheless, if the “decision-makers” do not
limit the formerly distinct options they work on building new ones. In this situation when “create
a new option on their own, they can single it out and justify it by making a decision,
simultaneously considerably changing the structure of their knowledge”. The validity context
also acts as an important determinant in evaluation of information. This can be problem related
or stating to a specific issue pertaining to environmental circumstances. The example of general
context is seen with evaluation of general economic or political situation which should be
considered during proceeding with a decision (Goodfellow, Pouget-Abadie, & Mirza, 2014).
The “last phase” of the “decision-making” is considered with post decision process which
sets of to take a procedure of uncertainty if the choice was best possible. In this stage, the
investigators are able to influence themselves that they have “chosen well by increasing the
attractiveness of the selected option and simultaneous depreciation of the remaining
alternatives”. This particular mechanism is known as the post decision dissonance and the
differences between the opinion and the goal which the investigators had been following. The
strategy for reducing the dissonance can be done with seeking the conformation of an
individual’s choice with other person by linking oneself with the people who made it worse
decision in a similar condition or involved in cognitive manipulating the significance of
information post making of choice. Despite of the aforementioned efforts the decision-makers
may experience post decision regret. This implies that more difficult the “decision the stronger
the regret”. In such an instance the investigators take measures for elevating the emotional

5INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
repercussions of the regret and prevent themselves from altering the decision which they have
already made. This is considered as an example of the decision-maker which is rationally limited
with making critical life choices (Andrade et al., 2016).
Some scientists are of the opinion that the human brain process consciously amongst
“five and nine pieces of information” at a given time. Too much of information may interfere
with the understanding. At the time when the “prefrontal cortex” is overwhelmed with excess
information, a person will be no longer evaluate the different perspectives of the information.
The correlation is muddled with the “causation and people make theories out of coincidences”.
On the contrary, the emotional brain can follow along their path of evolutionary development
which is conducive in making complex decisions. The emotional brain is recognized to have an
enormous computational power which can develop millions of bits of data in parallel and enable
us in analysing a huge information when we assess alternatives (Rozin et al., 2015).
As discussed by Edelaar-Peeters, Stiggelbout, & Van Den Hout, (2014), it has been
understood that most of the decisions taken by the investigators influenced strongly by “gut-
feeling”. The main indications for the managers is evident even when approaching a complex
problem with the logical emotionally disconnected logic when tapping into superior dispensation
powers for the emotional brain. In case an individual is able to reflect number of important
complex decisions then the chances are these are strongly influenced by gut feeling. A
significant nature of the empirical research shows that human brain is not designed to
compensate a massive amount of “data subject to ourselves”. As consequence the investigators
constantly keep on greater than the capacity for prefrontal cortices, thereby overloading the
capacity to process the “deluge of facts, figures, variables and scenarios required for effective
operational, tactical and strategic decision making” (Fleming & Daw, 2017).
In normal course of business, the investigators face “steady flow of time-critical complex
decisions”. In a short span of time they reach the epitome of their aptitude to assess all the
“variables, constraints and trade-offs”. In this process they “begin to feel” overwhelmed for
choosing their “intuition or gut-feeling, then produce a rational clarification of why they opted
for such a decision”. The business environments are required to apply “explicit logic, reasoning,
supporting data and repeatable processes” for trusting on traditional combination of “reason,

6INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
intuition, emotion and gut feelings is neither an effective or sustainable response” (Botta et al.,
2017).
“Today’s ill-structured business environment”, upsurge in uncertainty and fast-paced
change has led to searching for management tools which are conducive in decision-making.
Based on the definition, the intuition as a nonsequential information processing mode, consists of
both cognitive and affective elements which it is that is in direct know-how without the use of
conscious reasoning. Some of the secondary sources of research has been able to develop at this
debit model for combined “investigative intuitive decision-making” and suggest new ways to
amount the use of intuition. The main model analysed for the study is partially driven by
“emotion, imagination, and memories crystallized into occasional insights”. These perspectives
have been able to stress on the significance of multidimensional approach for decision-making
thereby including the bounded rationality along with “heuristics, insight, and intuition”. There
have been several arguments in which intuition has provided the investigators an improved grasp
of changing dynamics invisibly operating nowadays (Garcia-Retamero & Cokely, 2014).
The model of integrated logical and “intuitive decision-making” is used for
“complementary and iterative fashion” which is resolute by dispositional and contextual factors.
The empirical evidence has been able to state that the ambiguous situations and the earlier
described conditions for the “decision-makers” tend to use intuition which is in conjunction with
the rational analysis. The main findings of the research have recommended that intuition is
helpful in situations when the issues are poorly structured. The learnings of the study further
show how managers are more likely to using intuition when they are “solving ill-defined
problems” without any present precedents which are related to the nonroutine decisions arriving
at a similar conclusion. Some of the other factors and to nonsequential information processing
which is related to intuition and its perceived importance associated to the decision and its
impact on the decision-maker. Several findings of field studies have illustrated that many
managers acknowledge the dependence on intuition which are seen to be differentiated in terms
of personal characteristics, culture and job category. The main challenges of the study have been
included with nonconscious and evasive phenomena which is objectively used in the scientific
techniques. Some of them in multitudes of the disciplines are seen in terms of psychology,
neuroscience and phenomenology. These are the areas where “intuition has entered the domain

7INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
of management”. The present challenge of the organizational science has succinctly highlighted
formulate the new league and information into theoretical sound ideas which are more relevant to
pragmatic world of business (Phillips et al., 2016).
In order to do so the first step of the research has identified the factors that intuition does
not suitable into the class of “analysis or rationality”. The extensive literature review from the
previous studies has highlighted on the connection between emotions and intuition and taken that
anecdotal evidence conducted from “informal interviews and observation” from managers at
work. The definition of intuition is considered as a non-sequential “information processing”
mode which consists of mutually cognitive and affective elements which results in the direct
know-how of conscious reasoning. The definition is further seen to be on guard with three
commodities which are linked to the nonverbal quality of the construct. By taking the business
perspective intuition is identified as a nonconscious ability. To compensate the lengthy debate on
subtleties of “sub- and non-consciousness” research has considered the term nonconscious
among all the individuals who are beyond consciousness (De la Fuente et al., 2014).
The main consideration of the nonsequential information processing is seen to appear
generally in the implied literature till date. In traditional perspectives, the contemporary strategic
perspectives are seen with the “global ability to synthesize unconnected memory fragments into
new information structure”. Despite of the significant differences in terms of focus, both streams
have been seen to confirm on “nonlinear, non-sequential nature of holistic processing”.
Similarly, the intuitive processing can be linked with nonconscious scanning of internal (which is
done in terms of memory) and external (which is done in terms of environment) resources in a
“non-temporal, nonlogical manner” to identify the appropriate information which are tailored
into the explanation in a seemingly unorganized manner. At times when the assembled pieces
start making sense, the big picture certainly appears in terms of commonly convoyed by feeling
of certitude or relief. The important nature of the nonconscious aspect is considered with
unawareness of the reasoning which is included in the “investigators mind prior to the
‘appearance’ of the solution” (Lerner et al., 2015).
The interpretations made from these secondary findings as implied on the idea of
intuition as nonconscious, rapid pattern acknowledgement and synthesis of historical
“professional expertise and experience”. According to the experience “decision-makers”, the

8INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
circumvent analysis is seen to be in favour of the “holistic scanning of memory” related to
similar events or situations. On retrieving this information, the investigators are able to really
reorganize the “chunks of information” into a interrelated pattern. The aforementioned activities
are seen to occur without the consciousness process. This definition has precluded on the use of
intuition among novices, however due to absence of frequent involvement and domain specific
expertise, they consider diverse position and contend that the less experience decision-makers
may also arrive to a solution intuitively.
It needs to be noted that the selected review of intuition measure was not able to discover
an instrument which may comprehensively appraise the intuition as a defined model proposed.
Based on the theoretical discourse, the appropriate question of design is required for analytical
“decision-making” which is measured distinctly. As per the specified meaning, the intuitive scale
is required to comprise of the items which interprets “nonsequential information processing,
experience-based pattern recognition, emotional responsiveness, direct knowing, and absence of
conscious processes”. This particular study has suggested a cautious approach which uses a
combination of measures for tapping out different facets of intuition. The intuition research
seekers have suggested substitute methods which may offset the shortcomings of questionnaire
events such as explanation of the decision-making process, what kind of the explanation and
measure of the time required to make a decision (Rozin et al., 2015).
The team at MITSloane has conducted a research on 3000 executives, managers and
analysts has made some findings which are consistent with top-performing organizations. They
have been able to state that the investigators take their results on severe examination at double
the rate of lower performers. The information gathered has further depicted that the use of
analytics is five times more than lower performers. In addition to this, the top-performing
organizations view analytics as a differentiator and they act double as likely to use the analytics
to guide “day-to-day operations” among the inferior performers. The overall findings of the
research have further suggested that there is a strong connection among the performance and
competitive use for business analytics and optimization. It needs to be further understood that the
best execution organizations method business contrarily from their peers and specifically apply
the business analytics and optimization work for the widest possible variety of decisions based
on both large and small firms (Botta et al., 2017).

9INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
Conclusion
The discourse of the research studies has been able to suggest that 40% of the major
decisions relies on the managers gut rather than actual facts. It needs to be understood that the
science of “decision-making” is relatively new but current research has confirmed that “decision-
making” processes far more complex than “mix of reason, intuition and emotion” which was
formerly thought. In terms of the traditional view the intricate decisions require excluding the
emotional inputs to give priority to “rational thought and systematic fact-based reasoning”. It
needs to be noted that in psychology the “decision-making” process is alienated into three phases
namely the pre-decision phase which involves information gathering and problem formulation.
As stated by the second phase is known as the decision phase which states the choice amongst
previously “distinct options and the post decision phase” which identifies the assessment of
decisions made. The basic criterions involved in the pre-decision phase includes identifying the
problem and defining the discrepancy between exists between the present state and the desired
state. This situation of dilemma is faced by the investigators while making a choice which can be
considered as per “diverse criteria such as convergence” (“when the desired state is relatively
well defined and just one solution is possible”), complexity (“when more complex problems
require processing a considerable amount of data and generating their mental representation in a
form of a mental model”) and definiteness (when the problems are defined in an orderly manner
and that is that information is available for gold, circumstances and terms of acceptability for
future solutions).

10INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
References
Andrade, M. V., Noronha, K., Kind, P., De Barros Reis, C., & De Carvalho, L. R. (2016).
Logical inconsistencies in 3 preference elicitation methods for EQ-5D health states.
Medical Decision Making, 36(2), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15601047
Botta, N., Jansson, P., Ionescu, C., Christiansen, D. R., & Brady, E. (2017). Sequential decision
problems, dependent types and generic solutions. Logical Methods in Computer Science,
13(1). https://doi.org/10.2168/LMCS-13(1:7)2017
Costa, A., Foucart, A., Arnon, I., Aparici, M., & Apesteguia, J. (2014). “Piensa” twice: On the
foreign language effect in decision making. Cognition, 130(2), 236–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.010
De la Fuente, J., Santiago, J., Román, A., Dumitrache, C., & Casasanto, D. (2014). When You
Think About It, Your Past Is in Front of You: How Culture Shapes Spatial Conceptions of
Time. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1682–1690.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534695
Defoe, I. N., Dubas, J. S., Figner, B., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2015). A meta-analysis on age
differences in risky decision making: Adolescents versus children and adults.
Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 48–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038088
Ding, C., Simulation, D. M., & Liu, C. (2014). A tour-based analysis on the interrelationships of
built environment , travel behavior , and car ownership. Transportation Research Board
93rd Annual Meeting. January 12-16, Washington, D.C., (January), 1–18.
Edelaar-Peeters, Y., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Van Den Hout, W. B. (2014). Qualitative and
quantitative analysis of interviewer help answering the time tradeoff. Medical Decision
Making, 34(5), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14524989
Fleming, S. M., & Daw, N. D. (2017). Self-evaluation of decision-making: A general bayesian
framework for metacognitive computation. Psychological Review, 124(1), 91–114.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000045

11INVESTIGATIVE PRINCIPLES
Garcia-Retamero, R., & Cokely, E. T. (2014). The Influence of Skills, Message Frame, and
Visual Aids on Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 27, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm
Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., & Mirza, M. (2014). Generative Adversarial Networks. arXiv
Preprint arXiv: …, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058452
Huys, Q. J. M., Guitart-Masip, M., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2015). Decision-Theoretic
Psychiatry. Clinical Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614562040
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and Decision Making.
Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 799–823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
010213-115043
Phillips, W. J., Fletcher, J. M., Marks, A. D. G., & Hine, D. W. (2016). Thinking styles and
decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(3), 260–290.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000027
Rozin, P., Haddad, B., Nemeroff, C., & Slovic, P. (2015). Psychological aspects of the rejection
of recycled water: Contamination, purification and disgust. Judgment and Decision
Making, 10(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/t10199-000