How does Steve Maas use a compare and contrast text structure in “”Gambler's fallacy” Affects Decision Making” ? please provide textual evidence

Question

The researchers found, for example, that the odds that a judge rejects an asylum seeker are 3.3 percentage points higher if the judge has approved the previous case, all else being equal. They also noted that the likelihood that judges are influenced by a prior decision increases with the length of the sequence of positive or negative rulings and the similarity of the previous cases. The researchers also studied loan officers in India. The officers were asked to review loan application files that had already been processed and to make recommendations about whether to approve the loan. They faced different incentive schemes, which placed different degrees of emphasis on an accurate assessment. Because the files had been reviewed previously, the authors could evaluate the quality of the officers’ decisions by examining the actual performance of the loan and exploring whether recommended loans on average were performing better.

Answer 1

In his analysis of the "Gambler's Fallacy" and its impact on decision-making, Steve Maas employs a compare and contrast text structure to highlight how decision-makers across different fields—like judges and loan officers—are influenced by prior outcomes. This method allows him to effectively illustrate the similarities and differences in how the Gambler's Fallacy manifests in various contexts.

For instance, Maas compares the behavior of judges making decisions about asylum seekers and loan officers assessing loan applications. He points out that judges are influenced by previous rulings: "the odds that a judge rejects an asylum seeker are 3.3 percentage points higher if the judge has approved the previous case." This exemplifies how a succession of decisions can affect subsequent choices in a legal context.

On the other hand, he contrasts this with the context of loan officers in India, who also demonstrate a similar cognitive bias influenced by past decisions. The officers' evaluations of loan applications are scrutinized for how prior reviews impact their recommendations, with the researchers noting that "the authors could evaluate the quality of the officers’ decisions by examining the actual performance of the loan." Here, Maas effectively highlights how the influence of historical decisions varies slightly depending on the stakes and the context—judicial versus financial—yet arrives at a common thread of cognitive bias.

By utilizing this compare and contrast structure, Maas not only underscores the pervasive nature of the Gambler's Fallacy across different domains but also invites the reader to understand the broader implications of biased decision-making in critical fields that affect people's lives. The textual evidence he presents supports this analysis, illustrating the concept while allowing a nuanced examination of the cognitive pitfalls that practitioners face in their decision-making processes.