home Fairy tales Value judgments regarding internal and. What is factual character and value judgment? What is the actual character

Value judgments regarding internal and. What is factual character and value judgment? What is the actual character

Absolutely any person is a part of the environment in which he lives. This implies a reluctance to stand out from society. Now we can conclude that the subjective evaluative opinion of each of us is the result of the influence of public judgments.

Why is an assessment needed?

The main task of assessment is self-control and self-management, coupled with identifying oneself with society. We begin to talk about value judgment when it comes to such concepts as the protection of honor and dignity. But most often this concept is used precisely in the scientific field in order to define certain facts and theories.

Concept definitions

A value judgment is a person's subjective assessment of any environmental phenomenon. Simply put, this is an opinion that is expressed most often with the help of evaluative concepts. We are used to using them in everyday life, for example, for good or bad. Thus, we explain our personal position in relation to a particular object, person or phenomenon.

What are judgments?

Value judgments are usually divided according to their direction. We can talk about three types:

Factual or objective judgments record those events that really happened in life. Simply put, an event that was captured by people or special devices, and also stored in any form or has evidence. An actual theoretical value judgment can be the result of both one's own experience and that of others. This also includes events that occur not only in real life, but can also be plots of books, movies, advertising, and so on. For example, Harry Potter is a wizard who studied at Hogwarts. It's definitely a fact, but a fact that happened in a fantasy world.
A value judgment is a subjective opinion, which may even belong not to a particular person, but to the whole society. This type of judgment reflects the individual perception of the fact.
Theoretical judgments are the information that is based on the experience of more than one generation. In order to have an actual evaluative theoretical character of judgments, it is absolutely not necessary to be a scientist or understand science. Even the most ordinary person can get scientific experience.

Scientific experience

To understand this issue, you need to define what scientific experience is and where to get it. Everything is simple here, usually these are any events, concepts, theories, schemes that are presented by competent people in an orderly and concrete manner. The amount of knowledge in the world is crazy, but only those that have received their approval from the scientific community and have been published in special editions are recognized as scientific. Theoretical judgments must not be confused with the most ordinary facts. After all, a phenomenon is a specific event, and a theory is a scheme of actions. Each person gives an independent assessment of certain phenomena and objects, and it is considered as such, even if this judgment is imposed on him by the surrounding world.

Types of evaluative opinion

Psychology characterizes value judgments as follows. They are: right / wrong, adequate / inadequate, optimal / non-optimal. A person characterizes each of his actual judgments and value judgments in accordance with these three positions. Even though a person can make mistakes, he always considers his opinion to be correct, adequate and optimal. Each of these characteristics has its own properties. For example, a person can add up his opinion about the correctness of another person's judgment if he compares it with the patterns of events. With regard to adequacy, we compare the judgment with reality, already existing facts. The optimality of an opinion is determined by the benefit of the opinion to the one who expresses this opinion. For example, if a person decides to lie, such an opinion can be called optimal if, thanks to his lie, a person achieves his goal. Examples of a value judgment that is inadequate and not optimal can be as follows: something unpleasant happened to a person, but he looked at the situation with optimism and found positive moments. In the future, such a judgment helped him achieve new goals and change his life for the better. By assessing the surrounding reality, a person can manage and control himself, thereby forming his own reality. If we talk about the most important mission of a value judgment, then this is not a struggle for the truth, but the justification of one's own thoughts, words, and actions.

What are the statements?

A judgment is a sentence that is expressed through narration. We usually deal with the following types of opinions:

Evaluative - usually involves an open or indirectly expressed opinion of a particular person about what is happening from the position of good or bad. If the presence of a value judgment is indirect, then it can only be identified by asking additional questions to the speaker.
Justifying - a judgment that is supported by arguments and facts.
Analytical - a judgment that notes the specific need for the existence of a particular phenomenon or object, its analysis and the degree of connection with other objects.
Existential - the most common opinion in its purest form. Used to indicate the existence of a certain fact without a specific explanation.
Definition - a judgment, the essence of which is to reveal the essence of a particular phenomenon or object.

If an opinion has absorbed several of the above features at once, then it is constructive.

educational process

Equally important is the value judgment in the educational process. In fact, the activity of the teacher is aimed at evaluation. Grades are a kind of indicators of the achievement of certain results by students, which act on students as an incentive to action. And if everything is clear with psychology, then pedagogy has its own classification of value judgments.

Destructive - the opinion of the teacher about the student, which negatively affects the self-esteem of the latter. Usually such judgments are filled with expressive vocabulary and in no way push the student to achieve better results, on the contrary, they contribute to the fact that he begins to act out of spite.
A limiting judgment is based on comparing certain results with some established truth. If the student deviates from this truth, he receives a reprimand. Thus, his activity is limited to certain limits set by the teacher.
Supportive value judgment is the most effective. For example, teachers can praise even the most negligent student with the aim that he even looked at the textbook with one eye.
Developmental value judgment is preferred in education. If the previous option places the student in a certain comfort zone, where he is always ready for praise, then in this case, the teacher's comments direct the student on the path to further growth and movement forward.

As we can see, value judgments play one of the main roles in the educational process.

Examples

Scientific interpretation of facts does not take place without evaluation and expression of opinion. Each scientist, after analyzing and studying any kind of information, must express his opinion, which he has developed in the process of research. That is why any material has true social facts, which are mixed with the subjective opinion of the author. It is possible to identify a value judgment in scientific publications by using the following constructions in the text: in all likelihood, it seems, most likely, there is reason to assume, I think, my point of view, and so on. Often such judgments can become the basis for explaining the influence of events on other objects or phenomena. They can be identified by the presence of the following phrases in the text: this situation can be an example, this fact explains the following, based on the above, we can conclude, and so on.

How likely is it to rain today? Is this person suitable for some
position? What are the chances of your favorite football team to win?
in the final match? How confident am I in the correctness of the decision made?
niya? What is the real price of this car, are there too many
does the seller pay for it? Is it dangerous to walk at night in this area?
kind? What is the probability of entering this university at this faculty? In ca-
How much can you trust this person?

Each of us often have to answer such questions. Answer-
Tami on them are value judgments(in English literature -
judgment). A value judgment is a subjective, or psi-
chological, measurement. Making a value judgment, a person classifies
cites, ranks, assigns certain numerical values to objects
there, events or people. For example, when asked if a given
applicant for work in this position, you can answer "yes" or "no",
you can compare it with other applicants, or you can assess the degree of
position responsibility in percent. In the first case it will be a simple class
classification into suitable and unsuitable for the position, in the second - the procedure
fool ranking, and in the third - the assignment of a numerical value. But
in all these cases we are dealing with a value judgment.

Value judgments can rightly be categorized as
nitivnye processes or processes of information processing. but
value judgments have a certain specificity. Its essence lies in
that they stand (so to speak) on the "edge" of the multitude of cog-
nitive processes. On the one hand, in value judgments, use
everything that is acquired at the primary stages of information processing is taken into account.
tsii - sensory and perceptual; on the other hand, it is precisely the evaluative
deniya completes the process of information preparation of the action,
it is on their basis and under their direct influence that the
there are so-called regulatory processes: decisions are made,
Goal-setting occurs and behavior is planned. By virtue of the said
(“marginal”) specific value judgments to a greater extent than,
we feel, sensations and perceptions are “tied” to motivational and emotional
physical processes. Value judgments reflect not only (but other
and not so much) reality, but also the needs and goals of the individual himself.

Chapter 11

The psychological study of value judgments began in the 1950s.
das of the 20th century in the framework of decision-making problems. In 1954 Ward Edwards
published a review of decision making research
conducted by economists, mathematicians and philosophers. In 1955, another
renowned researcher Herbert Simon formulated principle
concept of bounded rationality, the essence of which was that
limited cognitive abilities of a person, his evaluative judgments
and solutions differ significantly from rational ones, they are suboptimal
we are full of mistakes. Since then, the efforts of psychologists working in the field
studies of value judgments were aimed at identifying
more and more errors in subjective measurements. An error in this
considered everything that does not correspond normative model- mathematical
decision-making model developed by mathematicians or economists
mi. It came almost to the tragic intensity of passions. More and more
the belief that human value judgments have
highly unstable, inconsistent and fuzzy character, they are evil
things distort reality, their rationality is inevitably violated by many
various factors: the specifics of the task, the context, the individual
real qualities of a person making a value judgment, his emotional
the rational state, etc. . The picture turned out to be
a person in his assessments of reality and decisions - almost completely
irrational being. The situation is paradoxical. From one
On the other hand, we have rational, normative models, theories,
telling a person how he should act, on the other hand, irrational
onal human behavior. Moreover, the author of both the first (theories) and
the second (real behavior) was the same humanity.

This situation led to a turning point in the interpretation of rational behavior.
Denia. This happened around the mid 90s. In this sense ha-
the review on value judgments and decision making is
niya, published in 1998 . The authors about
Zorah note that psychologists have become increasingly aware of the limitations
traditional approach to the study of value judgments.

What was the essence of this approach and what needs to be revised in it?
The only criterion optimality evaluative behavior was his great-
fortitude. At the same time, correctness was understood as how accurately in assessing
nighttime judgment reflects reality. If, for example, a person believes that
his chances of getting a job in a given city are 25%, and special
objective data confirm this assessment, then the judgment can be considered
correct. If a person systematically overestimates (or underestimates)
f) their chances of getting a job, then this kind of value judgments
law can be considered erroneous, and therefore suboptimal.

However, many years of research have convinced psychologists that the
vigor is not the only criterion that guides
person when making a value judgment. If you need to buy one
disposable lighter, then you will not spend long hours studying technical
characteristics of these very inexpensive devices, for a survey of experimental

Unrealistic optimism

new users and structured interviews with sellers. Let you
mistakenly consider one of the lighters more reliable and convenient in
use, let your evaluative behavior and subsequent choice be
are wrong in the strict sense of the word, but they will be optimal-
mi in terms of the criterion of saving, or minimizing, efforts. Let
football players will overestimate their chances of winning before the game, let them evaluate
nighttime judgments will be wrong, but they will be optimal with
in terms of the quality of the upcoming game, because by doing so they both
would program themselves to win. Even if they don't win, but
surely they will play better than if they initially expected to lose.
Let you be mistaken in thinking that, do not enter this university and did not receive
just this education, you would have been tormented all your life by what you
it's not your business. Let, from the point of view of "absolute" truth, this
it’s not like that for everyone, but cats don’t scratch your soul, speaking in a stricter language
com, evaluating your past as a relatively favorable outcome, you
provide yourself with a comfortable emotional state.

So, paradoxical as it may sound, a value judgment can be
wrong, but optimal. Accuracy of reflection of reality is not-
being the only criterion for the optimality of value judgments. From the time of-
scientific studies of evaluative behavior make it possible to single out at least
at least three more criteria. This saving, or minimizing, cognitive effort
(see, for example,); improving the efficiency of
next action; improvement in emotional state(see, for example,
). The optimality criterion is essentially a cognitive
tive meta-purpose, or, more simply, that for the sake of which, in the name of which the evaluative
judgment is made. Behavior can generally be considered optimal if
it maximizes, contributes to the achievement of the optimality criterion. Ana-
logical evaluative behavior is optimal if it contributes to the achievement
cognitive metagoal or is consistent with the optimality criterion.

To explain many, if not all, of the so-called biases
night judgments from reality is possible by what the subject uses in his
evaluative behavior, along with the criterion of accuracy of reflection of reality
criteria for minimizing cognitive effort, increasing efficiency
follow-up action or criterion for improving the emotional state.

Next, we will consider the main facts obtained in the study.
value judgments, as well as their possible interpretations in terms of critical
optimality theories used by the subject of evaluative behavior.

Elena Alekseevna Sergienko, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Laboratory of Cognitive Psychology at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

How likely is it to rain today? Is this person suitable for a certain position? What are the chances of your favorite football team winning the decisive match? How confident are you that the decision you made was correct? What is the real price of this car, is the seller asking too much for it? To what extent can you trust this person?

Each of us often have to answer such questions. The answers to them are value judgments (in English literature - judgment). A value judgment is a subjective or psychological dimension. Making a value judgment, a person classifies, ranks, assigns certain numerical values to objects, events or people.

The psychological study of value judgments began in the 1950s within the framework of decision-making problems. In 1954, Ward Edwards published a review of the research on decision making by economists, mathematicians, and philosophers. In 1955, another well-known researcher Herbert Simon formulated the principle of bounded rationality, the essence of which was that, due to the limited cognitive abilities of a person, his value judgments and decisions differ significantly from rational ones, they are suboptimal and full of errors. Since then, the efforts of psychologists working in the field of value judgment research have been aimed at identifying more and more errors in subjective measurements. At the same time, everything that did not correspond to the normative model was considered a mistake - a mathematical model of decision-making developed by mathematicians or economists. It came almost to the tragic intensity of passions. The belief that human value judgments are very unstable, inconsistent and fuzzy, they ominously distort reality, their rationality is inevitably violated by many different factors: the specifics of the task, the context, the individual qualities of the person making the value judgment, his emotional state, etc. The picture turned out to be such that a person in his assessments of reality and decisions is an almost completely irrational being. The situation is paradoxical. On the one hand, we have rational, normative models, theories that prescribe to a person how he should act, on the other hand, irrational human behavior. Moreover, the author of both the first (theories) and the second (real behavior) was the same humanity.

This situation led to a turning point in the interpretation of rational behavior. This happened around the mid 90s. In this sense, the review on value judgments and decision-making, published in 1998, is characteristic. What was the essence of this approach and what needs to be revised in it? The only criterion for the optimality of evaluative behavior was its correctness. At the same time, correctness was understood as how accurately reality is reflected in a value judgment. If, for example, a person believes that his chances of getting a job in a given city are 25%, and special objective data confirm this assessment, then the judgment can be considered correct. If a person systematically overestimates (or underestimates) his chances of getting a job, then such value judgments can rightly be considered erroneous, and therefore suboptimal.

However, many years of research have convinced psychologists that correctness is not the only criterion that guides a person when making a value judgment. If you need to buy a disposable lighter, you won't spend long hours researching the technical specifications of these very inexpensive devices, interviewing experienced users and structured interviews with sellers. Let you mistakenly consider one of the lighters more reliable and convenient to use, let your evaluative behavior and subsequent choice be wrong in the strict sense of the word, but they will be optimal from the point of view of the criterion of saving, or minimizing, efforts. Let the players overestimate their chances of winning before the game, let their value judgments be wrong, but they will be optimal in terms of the quality of the upcoming game, because in this way they will, as it were, program themselves to win. Even if they do not win, they will certainly play better than if they initially expected to lose.

So, as paradoxical as it sounds, a value judgment may be wrong, but it is optimal. The accuracy of the reflection of reality is not the only criterion for the optimality of value judgments. Modern studies of evaluative behavior make it possible to single out at least three more criteria. It is the economy, or minimization, of cognitive effort; increasing the effectiveness of the follow-up action; improvement in emotional state. The criterion of optimality is, in fact, that for the sake of which, in the name of which the value judgment is made. In general, behavior can be considered optimal if it maximizes, contributes to the achievement of the optimality criterion.

Unrealistic optimism

For a long time in psychology and psychiatry, it was believed that a mentally healthy, in all respects, normal person evaluates himself correctly, i.e. he does not underestimate or overestimate his advantages and disadvantages in comparison with other people. But it turns out that this is not entirely true. A fairly large number of self-esteem studies show that people usually overestimate themselves somewhat.

For example, you will ask a large number of the most ordinary people to rate themselves on such a quality as intelligence, choosing one of the answer options below:

I am significantly dumber than most people of my age, gender and level of education;

I am dumber than most people of my age, gender, and level of education;

I am somewhat dumber than most people of my age, gender and level of education;

compared to people of my age, gender and level of education, I have average mental abilities;

I am somewhat smarter than most people of my age, gender, and level of education;

I am smarter than most people of my age, gender and educational level;

I am significantly smarter than most people of my age, gender, and level of education.

On average, people will rate themselves slightly above average. Think about it: the average person values himself above the average.

This and a number of other similar trends have been called unrealistic optimism. Numerous studies conducted in various countries (USA, Russia, Israel, etc.) show a stable tendency for absolutely normal adults to overestimate themselves in terms of a wide range of personal qualities.

There is a clear fallacy in the value judgment. Self-esteem distorts reality. In this case, we are dealing with self-esteem given by a person in the format of social comparison. An individual evaluates his personal qualities by comparing himself with others. According to Wood, resorting to social comparison, people can pursue three different goals: to form a correct idea of themselves (a criterion for accurately reflecting reality); improve one's behavior or personality traits (criteria for increasing the effectiveness of the subsequent action); increase their own self-esteem and self-esteem (a criterion for improving the emotional state). In addition, Wood noted that if a person believes that someone else is better than himself in some respect, then this serves as a powerful incentive for him to improve himself, improve his own behavior (“If someone can do better, then I can” ). On the other hand, the realization that you are better than others in some way increases self-esteem and improves your emotional state (“I am good, I am better than many others”). In this regard, there is reason to believe that the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism is associated with the desire of the subject to improve his emotional state.

Illusion of control

Belief in the controllability of an event, in the fact that we can somehow influence its outcome, is associated with a subjective assessment of the probability of this event. If the outcome of an event has a positive meaning for us (for example, successful graduation from a university, a dissertation, etc.), then the more we believe that we can influence the outcome of an event, the higher we estimate its probability. If the outcome of the event is negative (for example, illness, dismissal from work, etc.), then its subjective probability decreases with an increase in belief in controllability. However, often the belief in the controllability of the situation turns out to be illusory, and in such cases the assessment of the probabilities of events turns out to be erroneous - overestimated or underestimated. Lange's ingenious experiments show that people sometimes develop a belief in control even over purely random events. To illustrate the illusion of control, Lange gave each of his subjects the opportunity to buy a $1 lottery ticket that could win $50. The experimenter allowed one group of subjects to choose a ticket on their own. The other group received a randomly selected ticket from the experimenter. Before the draw, the experimenter asked each subject from both groups what price they would be willing to sell their ticket for if they were willing to pay more than the original price for it, i.e. more than 1 dollar. While the subjects in the second group quoted an average price of $1.96, the subjects in the first group (those who chose the ticket themselves) requested an average of $8.67. It is logical to assume that the "independent" subjects asked for a higher price because the probability of winning seemed to them greater than the subjects of the other group. Thus, the results of this experiment substantiate the fact that the belief in the controllability of the situation affects the assessment of the probability of an event.

On the other hand, in relation to a number of situations, the belief in the controllability of events is quite reasonable and productive, since a person who strives for a positive outcome (or avoids a negative outcome) and is able to influence what happens to him does indeed make a positive outcome more, and negative less likely. If a person believes that he is able to change the situation for the better, then this mobilizes him and thereby increases the likelihood of success. If the degree of controllability of the situation is somewhat exaggerated, then this is not optimal from the point of view of the criterion of accuracy of reflecting reality, but it is optimal from the point of view of increasing the success of the future action.

The availability heuristic and the visibility effect

Another well-studied effect of event probability estimation is the availability heuristic. Heuristics is a creative technique for solving a problem, in contrast to a given, “prescribed” method of solving. The essence of this effect is that a person evaluates the probability of events depending on how easily examples of these or similar events come to mind, pop up in memory. In order to assess, for example, how often it rains in a given area, one can, of course, turn to a deep study of the geographical features of the area and an analysis of weather records over the past 20-30 years. But if you are not a meteorologist, you are unlikely to fool yourself in this way. You will save your cognitive efforts and, guided by precisely this criterion, solve the problem in a heuristic way: slightly strain your memory, remember the times when it rained here, and based on this general impression, evaluate its probability in this area. Most likely, your estimate will differ from the true one (say, from the estimate of meteorologists), but it is unlikely that the magnitude of the error will be significant to you.

This heuristic usually works quite well, because, other things being equal, events that occur frequently are easier to remember or imagine than events that occur rarely. But in some cases, the availability heuristic (and, accordingly, the desire to minimize cognitive effort) leads to systematic errors. Some events come to mind more easily, not because they are more likely, but because of other factors. We remember an event better if it happened recently, if it had a strong emotional impact, if it is often covered in the press, and so on. Thus, we evaluate the event as more likely, often without any real reason for it.

In one experiment, American students were asked what was the more likely cause of death in the US: to die under the wreckage of a crashing plane or to be eaten by a shark. Most rated the shark attack as the more likely event. However, statistics show that the real chances of dying under the wreckage of an aircraft are 30 times (!) More than the likelihood of being eaten by a shark. Apparently, the movie "Jaws" and other emotionally loaded information played a role.

Another effect close to the availability heuristic related to perception and probability estimation is the vividness effect. Research shows that our evaluations and judgments are affected by the vividness and vividness of information. One of the most successful experiments demonstrating this effect was carried out by a group of American psychologists in 1980. The subjects participated as jurors in a mock trial of a person accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. Half of the subjects read the accuser's pale conclusion and the defender's bright conclusion, the other half, on the contrary, read the accuser's bright, visual conclusion and the defender's pale conclusion. For example, a pale description of the defense was: "The defendant was not drunk because he was alert enough to avoid colliding with an oncoming vehicle." And a visual description of the same episode looked like this: "The accused was not drunk because he managed to avoid a collision with a bright orange Volkswagen." The results of the experiment showed that the clarity of the conclusion did not affect the assessment of the guilt of the accused by the subjects immediately after reading the conclusions. However, the next day, when the same subjects were asked to again evaluate the guilt of the accused, those subjects who read the prosecutor's visual conclusion shifted their assessments towards the admission of guilt, and those subjects who read the defense's visual conclusion shifted their assessments towards the admission of innocence.

According to the authors of the experiment, the visual effect can be explained by more efficient storage of bright, lively information in memory compared to information devoid of visual features. Thus, other things being equal, visual information comes to mind more easily, and therefore the events associated with it are assessed as more likely. In fact, in this case, we are dealing with the influence on value judgments of the desire (usually unconscious) to simplify the procedure for making a judgment, to save cognitive efforts, replacing a detailed analysis of information with a less laborious technique - relying on the vividness of information, on the freshness of its trace in memory.

Anchor effect

This effect is directly related to the folk expression "to dance from the stove." Our value judgments are dependent on the starting point, on the starting point. Imagine such a strange, but quite real experiment. Before you is something like a roulette wheel. There are numbers around the perimeter. The experimenter starts the roulette wheel. In one of the two groups of subjects, the roulette stops at the number 65. The subjects are asked: "Tell me, please, is more or less than 65 percent of African countries in the United Nations?" The next question is: “What do you think this percentage is?” In the other group of subjects, the situation is no different, except that the roulette wheel stopped at the number 10, and the number 65 was replaced by 10.

Let us now see how the subjects of these two groups answered the question about the percentage of African countries in the UN. The most interesting thing is that the averages of their responses were very different. The subjects of the first group, on average, gave an answer of 45%. At the same time, the subjects of the second group had an average score of 25%. The subjects, as is usually done in such cases, were randomly selected from the same population. Why, then, did they give such widely different answers? The only possible reason (and difference in conditions) is that the subjects of the experimental groups received different points of reference: the first 65, the second 10. These anchors influenced subsequent ratings, although the assignment of the anchor was purely random (the tape measure was rotated in front of the subjects) , and, moreover, the anchor itself had no thematic relevance to the problem being solved.

Consider the data of another experiment, which is most directly related to real life. Real estate agents (realtors) were given the opportunity to visit a house that was for sale. This home has been officially valued by experts at $135,000. Before visiting the home, the realtors received a standard 10-page package of information that is commonly used to assess the value of a property. All agents received the same information with one exception: in the packages of some agents (group 1) the price was indicated 11-12% lower than the real one, others (group 2) - 4% lower than the real one, the third (group 3) - 4% higher than the real one, the fourth (group 4) - 11-12% higher than the real one. The realtors had 20 minutes to inspect the house, after which they had to give their estimates of the price of the house (there are four types of standard estimates). The results of the experiment are given in table. one.

Table 1. Average ratings given by realtors according to Northcraft and Neale (1987)

Why was there such a variation in the judgments of experienced realtors? Because each of the listed groups was given its own anchor. Estimates seem to be attracted by an anchor. Estimates are affected not only by reality, “attracting” to itself, but also by an anchor that does not completely submit to reality. The larger the anchor, the larger each of the four rating types in general.

Thus, the anchor effect takes place not only in artificially created experimental situations, but also in real life; not only in relation to the assessment of probabilities (more precisely, frequencies, as in the experiment with the assessment of the frequency of occurrence of African countries in the UN), but also in relation to the assessment of values in the direct and figurative sense of the word.

The anchor effect can manifest itself in a wide variety of situations. Typical examples are negotiations and assessment of the personality traits of another person. In the case of negotiating, we can be influenced by what conditions are put forward by the opposite side: these conditions can serve as an anchor, the starting point of bargaining. Our assessment of another person can be affected by other people's opinions about him and poorly verified rumors, even if we try to be impartial and not rely on other people's opinions. The anchor effect can do us a disservice in cases where the anchor itself - the initial information on which we base our estimates, significantly distorts the idea of the object of assessment or (even worse) has nothing to do with it. Conversely, if the anchor is some quintessence, a compressed and undistorted characteristic of the object being evaluated, then the process and result of the evaluation can be very successful.

halo effect

Another very common human perception effect is the halo effect. Its essence lies in the fact that our assessment of the individual qualities of another person depends on our overall impression of this person. At the same time, judging the individual qualities of a person, we overly rely on our general impression and pay insufficient attention to the analysis and observation of its individual manifestations. We seem to be in captivity of the general impression that dominates our assessments. For example, under the influence of certain circumstances, we have a very favorable impression of this person (Ivanov), i.e. we believe that Ivanov is generally a good person - smart, kind, honest, likeable, sexually attractive, active, enterprising, creative, etc.

Now let's do a thought experiment. We have been watching Ivanov for some time, talking to him, maybe even doing something with him. We are then asked to rate him on intelligence, kindness, honesty, likeability, sex appeal, activity, and creativity. We rate Ivanov using, for example, the usual five-point system: from 1 (very low development of quality: say, very low mental abilities) to 5 (very high development of quality: very high mental abilities). At the same time, a professional psychologist, wanting to test our psychological intuition, tests Ivanov for the same qualities by which we should evaluate him. Testing gives an objective picture, our assessments are subjective and intuitive. It's like measuring temperature with a thermometer compared to judging (by eye) the temperature. What happens when we compare our judgments with test results?

Even if we are good intuitive psychologists, but do not know anything about the halo effect, it will turn out that our assessments of Ivanov in terms of his individual qualities are, as it were, shifted to his general assessment (our general impression of him). And our opinion is this: “Ivanov is a good person in general,” that is, in general, we mentally gave him a grade of 4. Our grades for Ivanov in individual subjects (qualities) will be closer to 4 on average than his real “marks” ( test results). The essence of our conclusions (not necessarily, by the way, realized by us) boils down to the following: “Ivanov is a good person, above average. Smart enough. More good than bad. In general, honest, although not crystal clear. You can't say he's handsome, but he's good-looking."

When evaluating another person, we all, to one degree or another, have a tendency to adjust our assessments to one template, “to cut one size fits all”. These patterns or "combs" are our overall impression of a person. The halo effect is one of the cases of simplification of reality. Relying on our general impression, we believe that if a person is generally good, then he is good in everything or almost everything, if he is bad, then he is trashy in all his qualities.

The halo effect, in the strictest sense, is an error in value judgment. Let's explain this idea. The halo effect takes place if and only if the correlation between the assessments of a person's qualities is greater than the correlation between the objective (real, actual) values of these qualities. Guided by the general impression of a person, we overestimate the degree of consistency of its various properties with this general impression, we simplify the picture, considering a person more "monolithic" than he really is. To paraphrase a well-known saying, we do not see trees beyond the forest. We have a very approximate knowledge of the details, content with some generalized knowledge. We make a mistake from the point of view of the adequacy of the reflection of reality, but we act optimally from the position of minimizing cognitive efforts.

Counterfactuals

Counterfactuals are representations of an alternative reality of the outcome of an event. This is thinking in the subjunctive mood like "if...then..." this exam for 4 or even 5 ”or“ If I hadn’t looked at the notes at all, then I wouldn’t have seen a triple. It is easy to see that in the first case, our negligent student constructs an alternative scenario of events that would lead to a better outcome than reality. In other words, this means that he considers his current situation as worse than what could be. Such counterfactuals are called upward counterfactuals. In the second case, on the contrary, the current situation is perceived as relatively good, since it could be worse. This is a counterfactual going down.

Roth's study convincingly shows that upward counterfactuals worsen emotional state, but positively affect future performance, and vice versa, downward counterfactuals improve emotional state, but lead to a relative deterioration in subsequent performance (compared to the control group that received no instruction to counterfactual thinking). If a person is inclined to think about some event in the style of "if ... then ... (would be worse)", then he is naturally glad that now is better than it could be. On the other hand, if a person thinks “if…, then… (it would be better)”, then his mood worsens. As for the impact of counterfactuals on subsequent activities, the author of the concept argues as follows. In imagining an alternative course of events that could lead to a better outcome, a person imagines some scenario that implies a certain line of behavior in the past. This, apparently, encourages a person to correct in the future, bring his behavior in line with this scenario (for example, continue to hang out less in discos during the session). If a person thinks in the mode of counterfactuals going down, thinking that everything went well anyway, then there is no special need to correct their own behavior (the next time you can look at the notes before the exam and again successfully “slip through”).

Deferred consideration valuation

Imagine such a situation. You are offered a choice of two one-time jobs at the same time. The amount of work and pay in both cases are the same. The only difference is that in the first case you will receive the money immediately upon completion of the work, and in the second - after six months. What kind of work would you prefer, even if you do not urgently need money, and even if you ignore the opportunity to earn bank or other interest on the money received? The answer suggests itself. Of course, you will prefer the first job. Why? Because the utility (subjective value) of an outcome decreases as the delay in its implementation increases. Simply put, today's money is worth more than the money that you will have to receive in six months. This pattern - the discount function - reveals itself not only in relation to money. It is logical to assume that the cause of the described effect is the "understanding" of a biological individual of its mortality, the finiteness of its existence. The longer you have to wait for what you want, the less likely it is to be received (you may not live to see it). Apparently, this is why $1,000 that you have to receive today is subjectively perceived (estimated) as a large amount compared to the same $1,000 that you will have to receive six months, a year, or a decade later.

What is a mistake - an example of irrational behavior? Yes, in some cases, the tendency to underestimate the delayed reward can lead to the abandonment of the action associated with obtaining a significant, but very long-term result. We can spend our whole lives chasing a tit in our hands, ignoring the pie in the sky, or, in pragmatic terms: refuse to receive $ 10,000 on hold. in favor of the immediate receipt of 1 000.e. And yet, in most cases, the sensitivity to the delay of reward, the dependence of the subjective value of the reward on when we can get it, helps us choose the most successful behaviors, and therefore works on one of the criteria we have indicated for the optimality of a value judgment.

Subjective assessment of gains and losses

We perceive positive and negative events in different ways, not only in terms of sign, but also modulo. In other words, the joy of winning $100 less than the grief of losing $100. We are more sensitive to the "stick" than to the "carrot"; to pain, loss, punishment than to comfort, gain and reward. But why? It can be assumed that this is due to the instinct of self-preservation. Punishment when it reaches a certain value leads to death. The preservation of life is a necessary condition for the functioning of the individual. First of all, you need to ensure your survival. If this condition is not met, then everything else will lose its meaning. In order for the ship to sail on the desired course, it is necessary first of all to make it so that it does not leak and, moreover, does not sink. Successful navigation is based precisely on this principle: first and foremost - buoyancy, and then - following the intended route. The success of an action is ensured in a similar way: first of all - safety, avoiding losses, and then - achievements and gains.

Justifying a difficult decision, the fallacy of hindsight, and confirmation bias

Let us briefly consider three effects in value judgments, which, apparently, are caused by the need to remove (reduce) uncertainty, the desire for consistency in one's own behavior and external events.

The effect of justifying difficult decisions was predicted by Leon Festinger, the author of the well-known theory of cognitive dissonance. This effect concerns the assessment of the attractiveness of alternative behaviors and takes place after a difficult decision is made. A hard decision is when the alternatives to be chosen differ little in their attractiveness.

An experimental study of one of Festinger's students, Brem, showed that after making a difficult decision, the subjective attractiveness of the chosen option increases and the subjective attractiveness of the rejected one decreases. The experiment was built as follows. The subjects (women) were asked to rate the attractiveness of various household items such as a stopwatch, radio, table lamp, etc. After that, one of the items was presented as a gift to the control group. The first experimental group (the difficult decision group) was given a choice between objects that were close in attractiveness; the second group (the group of easy solution) was given the opportunity to choose an object from two objects that differ greatly in attractiveness. After that, the subjects of all three groups were asked to rate the objects again according to their attractiveness. The results showed that the subjects of the experimental groups (those who had the right to choose) changed their assessments of the attractiveness of the objects that were given to them to choose from: compared with the initial assessments, the rejected object was perceived as relatively less attractive, and the chosen one was perceived as more attractive. In other words, the attractiveness of the rejected option has decreased, while that of the chosen one has increased. Moreover, the change in attractiveness ratings was more significant in the case of a difficult decision.

Festinger explains the described fact as follows. After making a difficult decision, a person experiences emotional discomfort, which is caused by the fact that, on the one hand, there are negative features in the chosen option, and on the other hand, there is something positive in the rejected option: the accepted one is partially bad, but it is accepted; what is rejected is partially good, but it is rejected. In an effort to get rid of the experienced contradiction, a person convinces himself that what he has chosen is not just slightly better than the rejected one, but much better, he sort of expands the alternative options: the chosen one pulls up the scale of attractiveness, the rejected one - down. The consequence of this is changes in value judgments regarding the attractiveness of alternative behaviors.

Another effect, presumably related to the need to remove uncertainty and, accordingly, emotional discomfort, is a retrospective error (hindsight bias): what has already happened seems inevitable and obvious to a person. Directly in value judgments, the effect is manifested in the fact that a person overestimates his own estimates of the probability of some event after the event has already occurred. It seems to a person that his forecasts were more certain than they really are. Hence the effect's other name: "I knew it would happen." The classic experimental demonstration of the flashback error was as follows. Subjects were asked to rate the likelihood of various events (such as US President Nixon visiting China before going to the Soviet Union). Several months after the first interview, and after an event had occurred (for example, Nixon's trip had taken place), subjects were asked to recall their initial estimates of the likelihood of that event. The results showed that most of the subjects overestimated these probabilities.

The desire for certainty, the avoidance of inconsistency and ambiguity, perhaps even more clearly manifests itself in the so-called confirmation bias. Its essence lies in the fact that a person evaluates as more reliable the information that confirms his opinion or his decision, in comparison with information that contradicts this opinion or decision. Confirmation propensity goes even further: a person not only values confirming information relatively higher, but also retrieves it more easily from memory.

Experimental manipulations with criteria for the optimality of evaluative behavior

Certain experimental manipulations of situational and personal factors can serve as direct evidence that the criterion for the optimality of value judgments can be not only the accuracy of reflecting reality, but also the above criteria, such as saving cognitive effort, increasing the effectiveness of the subsequent action and improving the emotional state.

The lack of time is one of the obvious external factors that necessitates saving on cognitive operations and using simplified methods of evaluative behavior instead of a systematic and complete analysis of the situation. For example, if you choose a product in a store, you can, of course, carefully read everything that is written on the package, compare the composition of the product with the composition of other similar products, etc. But in a number of cases, there is simply no time for meticulous analysis of external information. In such cases, as research results show, a person turns to internal information that is stored in his memory, in particular, to some integral assessment of the object's attractiveness, formed in the course of previous experience. The role of such information can be the prevailing stereotypes and attitudes (for example, "The new generation chooses Pepsi"). Relying on these stereotypes and attitudes is fraught with serious misconceptions, but in cases where it is necessary to act quickly, extracting schematic information from memory is very successful.

One of the demonstrations of the influence of increasing the effectiveness of action as one of the criteria for the optimality of evaluative behavior can be the results of experiments by the well-known German researcher in the field of motivation Heckhausen and his colleagues. The main methodological technique used in these studies was the diagnosis of the presence and severity of errors and illusions in value judgments at various stages of preparation for action. It is logical to assume that the closer to the moment the action begins, the more significant its effectiveness becomes for the individual, the more the individual focuses on the implementation of the upcoming action. Everything else fades into the background. The results of the subjects' statements (using the method of thinking aloud) confirm this assumption: the closer to the beginning of the action, the more thoughts about how to do the planned as best as possible, and less and less thoughts about what needs to be done, as far as this action is possible and important. Thus, the desire to achieve maximum efficiency of action becomes dominant. And it is at the stage immediately preceding the action, as the results of all the same experiments show, that people have the illusion of control relatively more often.

Let us dwell on the study of the influence of two distinctly negative emotions - sadness (despondency) and anxiety - on value judgments. According to researchers of emotional states, emotions of sadness, despondency, depression and despair are based on the experience of loss or absence of a loved object or person. In this regard, it is logical to assume that people who are in a depressed, sad mood will, first of all, strive to acquire something personally significant for them. It is precisely because of this desire that people in a state of sadness and longing buy gifts for themselves. On the other hand, the cause of emotions of anxiety, anxiety and fear is the uncertainty of the situation and its poor control by the individual. Consequently, a person who is in an anxious state will strive with all his might to reduce the uncertainty of the situation and avoid risk.

Recent experimental studies have shown that when individuals are given a choice between a behavior that can result in a large reward with a low probability of success (for example, a job offer with a large salary in the presence of a large competition), and a behavior when, with a relatively small rewards and a high probability of success (say, a job with a small salary and little competition from potential applicants), depending on their emotional state, demonstrate opposite preferences. So, the subjects who were in a state of sadness, depression, relatively more often chose the option with a large reward and high risk, and the subjects who were in a state of anxiety opted for a less risky option with a lower reward. The data of the conducted experiments give grounds to assert that the former evaluate the reward, the possibility of obtaining some valuable result as the most personally significant factor in the situation of choice, while the latter are more focused on avoiding risk.

The approach to value judgments is in its infancy. But the break happened. Evaluative behavior was no longer considered only from the point of view of the accuracy of reflecting reality, when all deviations from “correctness” were interpreted as a consequence of the limitations of human cognitive processes. In the study of value judgments, the fact that a person is not just a knowing, but also an acting being is increasingly taken into account. In this regard, further studies of motivational, intentional (goals, intentions, attitudes) and emotional factors in evaluative behavior seem very promising.

- betrothed, see judge
Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

Judgment cf.— 1. Opinion about smth. // Conclusion, decision. 2. A form of thinking, which is a combination of concepts, one of which - the subject - is determined and revealed through the other - the predicate (in logic).
Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova

Judgment- judgments, cf. 1. only units Action on verb. to judge in 1 meaning, discussion (book obsolete). With a common judgment sentenced. Krylov. Prolonged judgment on the matter. 2. Opinion. conclusion.........
Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

Commitment, Estimated— - unconditional
commitment, exact
the amount of which cannot be calculated before a certain date:
taxes on
profit, guarantee payments ........
Economic dictionary

Judgment- -I am; cf.
1. Opinion, conclusion about smth.; look at smth. S. about art. Express your own. Independence of judgments. What is your s. on this occasion? Harsh judgments..........
Explanatory Dictionary of Kuznetsov

Value Judgment
Economic dictionary

Value Judgment- a judgment about the desirability or undesirability of a given phenomenon, about what is fair and what is unfair, what should be and what should not be.
Law Dictionary

Judgment- the same as a statement. 2) A mental act that realizes the speaker's attitude to the content of the expressed thought and is associated with subjugation or doubt about its truth or falsity.
Big encyclopedic dictionary

Judgment- same as utterance.
Historical dictionary

Judgment- a sentence, statement, statement - a narrative message, which, by virtue of its meaning, can be true or false. In a narrower sense of the term under C.........
Mathematical Encyclopedia

Clinical Judgment- (clinical judgment) Studying K. with. can be divided into two different areas. The first form is research., which is based on the assumption that the judgments of the clinician differ ........
Psychological Encyclopedia

Reversed Judgment- In logic, a judgment obtained by transforming (changing terms) another judgment.
Psychological Encyclopedia

Evaluation Study— Field of applied psychology concerned with the development of procedures for testing the effectiveness of social, educational, therapeutic or other applied programs. See estimate (2).
Psychological Encyclopedia

Value Judgment- Attitude towards a person, object, principle, etc., based on how much a person appreciates their properties or characteristics.
Psychological Encyclopedia

Comparative Judgment- Quite literally, any judgment about a stimulus concerning its relationship (comparisons) with some other stimulus. A common procedure in scaling experiments is...
Psychological Encyclopedia

Judgment- (English judgement) - a generally valid verbal form (statement), due to which an abstract universality is given to sensory experience. S. contains the subject in the definition ........
Psychological Encyclopedia

Judgment (mkb 290-294)- - a critical assessment of the relationship between objects, circumstances, concepts or terms; hypothetical presentation of these connections. In psychophysics, this distinction is...
Psychological Encyclopedia

Judgment- - English. judgment(1)/ opinion(2); German Urteil. 1. Same as saying. 2. A mental act expressing the attitude of the speaker to the content of the thought expressed through the statement ........
sociological dictionary

Value Judgment- (vaalue judgment) - an ethical or moral assessment, especially of what "must be done" on the basis of ethics or morality. In logical positivism (see Positivism) ........
sociological dictionary

JUDGMENT— JUDGMENT, -I, cf. 1. In logic: a form of thinking, which is a combination of concepts, of which one (subject) is determined and revealed through the other (predicate). 2. Opinion,........
Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

Usually, you should respond to a non-verbal "message" taking into account the entire context of communication. This means that if the facial expressions, tone of voice and posture of the speaker correspond to his words, then there are no problems. In this case, non-verbal communication helps to more accurately understand what was said.

When the discrepancy between words and non-verbal "messages" is small, as is the case when someone hesitantly invites us somewhere several times, we may or may not respond with words to these conflicting expressions. Much depends on the participants in the communication, the nature of their relationship and the specific situation. But we rarely ignore gestures and facial expressions. They often force us to delay the fulfillment of, for example, an expressed request. In other words, our understanding of non-verbal language tends to be late. Therefore, when we receive “conflicting signals” from the speaker, we can express the answer in something like this: “I will think about it” or “We will return to this issue with you”, leaving ourselves time to evaluate all aspects of the communication before making a firm decision.

When the discrepancy between the words and non-verbal signals of the speaker is clearly expressed, a verbal response to "contradictory signals" is quite appropriate. Contradictory gestures and words of the interlocutor should be answered with emphatic tact. For example, if the speaker agrees to do something for you but shows signs of hesitation, such as frequent pauses, questions, or expressions of surprise, you might remark, “I think you are skeptical about this. Can you explain why?" This remark shows that you are attentive to everything that the interlocutor says and does, and thus will not cause anxiety or a defensive reaction in him. You are just giving him the opportunity to express himself more fully.

So, the effectiveness of listening depends not only on the exact understanding of the words of the speaker, but also, to no lesser extent, on the understanding of non-verbal signals. Communication also includes non-verbal cues that can confirm and sometimes refute an oral message. Understanding these non-verbal gestures and facial expressions of the speaker will help the listener to correctly interpret the words of the interlocutor, which will increase the effectiveness of communication.

Value judgments in business etiquette. Principles of strengthening judgments.

Value judgments, as a rule, cause in most people a bad reaction, and even aggression. It is one thing if you praise the other person for something, but another thing is if you express a negative judgment.

For example, you can reproach your friend that he is such a fool as you need to look for. If this is the style of your communication all the time, if your statement to a friend does not seem offensive, everything is fine. But more than once one has to see how, at negotiations, planning meetings and other business events, those who consider themselves entitled to express an opinion on the quality of other people’s work (boss or lead partner) “forgot” that they were not at a friendly meeting, and said phrases like “some cretin gave me an ugly report”, “Sidorov completely flunked the work”, etc.

And the report, based on common sense, was not ugly, and the work was not “completely” overwhelmed, but the principle of strengthening judgment at the expense of worsening the image of the author of the report was in effect here. To them, the judgment only looked unfair. Therefore, in the business world, it is customary to refuse any judgments with a negative feed.

A value judgment is a mental act that expresses the speaker's attitude to the content of the thought expressed by asserting the modality of what was said and usually associated with a psychological state of conviction or faith.

In a value judgment, the subject ascribes to the object certain moral qualities - advantages or disadvantages, while always expressing an attitude towards the object based on how much the subject appreciates the properties or characteristics of the object.

A value judgment is a subjective or psychological dimension. Making a value judgment, a person classifies, ranks, assigns certain numerical values to objects, events or people.

Value judgments, with the exception of insult or slander, are statements that do not contain factual data, in particular, criticism, evaluation of actions, as well as statements that cannot be interpreted as containing factual data, given the nature of the use of linguistic means, in particular, the use hyperbole, allegory, satire.

Value judgments are not subject to refutation and proof of their veracity.