Planning and Unpacking
Does Multiple-Subject Planning Produce Higher Performance Than Single-Subject Planning?
##article.authors##
-
Katsuhiko Nagase
Graduate School of Management, Tokyo Metropolitan University
https://researchmap.jp/read0025148
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51094/jxiv.438Keywords:
planning, unpacking, support theory, focusing illusion, inside view, outside viewAbstract
The planning fallacy refers to a cognitive bias wherein people underestimate the time it will take to complete a future task. Its degree is affected by unpacking. When a task is broken into components, each component is visualized, and the planning fallacy is reduced. This study examined the effects of unpacking at a more macro level by comparing single and multiple plans. The participants were 122 university students. They were first instructed to plan their exam study approximately ten days before the final Management Psychology exam. Some participants only planned to study Management Psychology, while the rest planned to study multiple subjects, including Management Psychology. Next, participants answered questions about their actual study time and the deviation between planning and execution at the time of the final exam. Results showed no difference in exam scores between multiple-subject planners and single-subject planners. However, planned study time and actual study time were shorter for multiple-subject planners, and the plans were more detailed for multiple-subject planners. The multiple-subject planners may have studied more efficiently due to the unpacking effect. That implies that planning for multiple tasks simultaneously is more effective than planning for only one task.
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure
The author declare no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript.Downloads *Displays the aggregated results up to the previous day.
References
Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Peetz, J. (2010). The planning fallacy: Cognitive, motivational, and social origins. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 1-62): Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)43001-4
Buehler, R., & Griffin, D. (2018). The planning fallacy. In G. Oettingen, A. T. Sevincer, & P. Gollwitzer (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 517–538): The Guilford Press.
Byram, S. J. (1997). Cognitive and motivational factors influencing time prediction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(3), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.3.3.216
Connolly, T., & Dean, D. (1997). Decomposed versus holistic estimates of effort required for software writing tasks. Management Science, 43, 1029-1045. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.43.7.1029
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. (2005). How (in)accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects?: The case of transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 131-146. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2238050
Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1998). A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Science, 44(7), 879–895. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634504
Hadjichristidis, C., Summers, B., & Thomas, K. (2014). Unpacking estimates of task duration: The role of typicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 45-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.009.
Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17-31. doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.1.17
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 414-421): Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809477.031
Kruger, J., & Evans, M. (2004). If you don't want to be late, enumerate: Unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 586–598. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jesp.2003.11.001
Nagase, K. (2022). Keikaku to hansei ga seika ni oyobosu eikyo. [Performance is affected by planning and reflection], Soshikigakkai Taikairombunshu [Transactions of the Academic Association for Organizational Science], 11(1), 73-78. (in Japanese). https://doi.org/10.11207/aaostrans.11.1_73
Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.406
Schkade, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1998). Does living in California make people happy? A focusing illusion in judgments of life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 9(5), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00066
Downloads
Posted
Submitted: 2023-07-01 08:03:00 UTC
Published: 2023-07-04 04:50:52 UTC
License
Copyright (c) 2023
Katsuhiko Nagase
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
