Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Bialek ◽  
Artur Domurat ◽  
Ethan Andrew Meyers
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Human Biology ◽  
Rational Choices ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Way

In this chapter, the way people consider possibilities in decision making are unpacked and explored. It begins by outlining the concept of rational choice – what a decision maker ought to choose. Specifically, it discusses how, for a given decision, a rational choice can (or cannot) be determined. Whether people often make rational choices, and what can be done to shift people toward making rational choices more often. The chapter also portrays decision making in a human light: explaining how defining a rational choice and the decision process are constrained by human biology and behavior. The steps required to make a decision are delineated, and at each step, it is briefly discussed when and how people can diverge from what they ought to be doing or choosing. The chapter closes by discussing how people evaluate decisions after they have made them and the factors that affect the evaluation.

scholarly journals Individuals with ventromedial frontal damage have more unstable but still fundamentally transitive preferences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Q. Yu ◽  
Jason Dana ◽  
Joseph W. Kable
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Choices ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Intransitive Preferences ◽  
Rational Decisions

AbstractThough the ventromedial frontal lobes (VMF) are clearly important for decision-making, the precise causal role of the VMF in the decision process has still not yet fully been established. Previous studies have suggested that individuals with VMF damage violate a hallmark axiom of rational decisions by having intransitive preferences (i.e., preferring A to B, B to C, but C to A), as these individuals are more likely to make cyclical choices (i.e., choosing C over A after previously choosing A over B and B over C). However, these prior studies cannot properly distinguish between two possibilities regarding effects of VMF damage: are individuals with VMF damage prone to choosing irrationally, or are their preferences simply more variable? We had individuals with focal VMF damage, individuals with other frontal damage, and healthy controls make repeated choices across three categories – artwork, chocolate bar brands, and gambles. Using sophisticated tests of transitivity, we find that, without exception, individuals with VMF damage made rational decisions consistent with transitive preferences, even though they more frequently exhibit choice cycles due to a greater variability in their preferences across time. That is, the VMF is necessary for having strong and reliable preferences across time and context, but not for being a rational decision maker. We conclude that VMF damage affects the noisiness with which value is assessed, but not the consistency with which value is sought.Significance statementThe VMF is a part of the brain that is thought to be one of the most important for preference-based choice. Despite this, whether it is needed to make rational choices at all is unknown. Previous studies have not discriminated between different possibilities regarding the critical necessary role that the VMF plays in value-based choice. Our study shows that individuals with VMF damage still make rational decisions consistent with what they prefer, but their choices are more variable and less reliable. That is, the VMF is important for the noisiness with which value is assessed, but not the consistency with which value is sought. This result has widespread implications for rethinking the role of VMF in decision-making.

The “Adversary System”: Rhetoric or Reality?

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Coughlan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
Adversary System ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Way

AbstractOur system of justice is generally referred to as an “adversary system,” although this term is used very loosely. At times, the term is used in a technical way to refer to a system with structured rules of evidence, party presentation of evidence, and a neutral decision-maker. At other times, the phrase seems to be given a broader meaning, referring to the way in which law is practised—that hard-headed competitiveness is the proper, and normal, approach. In fact, neither the rules of our justice system, whether criminal or civil, nor the way in which lawyers behave most of the time are best described as “adversarial.” The current situation, in which largely nonadversarial behavior and rules are described as an adversary system, gives rise to confusion and, more importantly, to unethical action. A possible solution is to cease calling our system an adversary one, and to acknowledge that other rules and behavior are more defining.

Dual-Process Models of Criminal Decision Making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Louis van Gelder
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Choice Models ◽  
Dual System ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
System Models ◽  
Dual Process Models ◽  
Point Of Departure

This chapter discusses the application of dual-process and dual-system models to offender decision making. It is argued that these models offer a more accurate account of the decision process than the traditional choice models in criminology, such as rational choice and deterrence models, and can overcome their various limitations. Specific attention is devoted to the hot/cool perspective of criminal decision making, which takes the dual-process hypothesis as a point of departure. This model is rooted in the idea that both “cool” cognition and “hot” affect, or thinking and feeling, guide behavior and that understanding their interaction is fundamental for understanding how people make criminal choices.

scholarly journals Data Quality, Power, And Politics: Analysis Of Strategic Decision Making

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew B. Nyaboga ◽  
Muroki F. Mwaura
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Processing ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Rational Behavior ◽  
The Way

Most decision makers have biases that are inherent the way they seek information, estimate the outcomes, and attach values to outcomes that produce rational behavior. Many aspects of decision-making may not be accurate because of information processing limitations, power and politics. This paper presents a set of ideas, models, and limitations caused by biases of a decision maker when sorting information.

Models of Transformative Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-99
Author(s):  
Samuel Zimmerman ◽  
Tomer Ullman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Hierarchical Model ◽  
Distance Function ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Core Beliefs ◽  
Transformative Experience ◽  
Novel Objects ◽  
The Difference

Deciding to undergo a transformative experience present unique challenges for a reasonable decision-maker, and for any attempt to give a formal account of how people can make such decisions. This chapter focuses on the challenges of novelty and change. It develops a normative hierarchical model for decision-making over novel objects, and show how it captures the commonsense intuition that we can rationally decide to try a new experience, but also that such decisions can be graded in difficulty. It then presents a framework for how people can think about big decisions that will affect their core beliefs, desires, and ultimately themselves, by modeling this as a decision process of choosing between different selves. Empirical evidence is used to refine different sub-models of this meta-reasoning process, including the asymmetric treatment of current and future utilities, the difference between future utilities and future beliefs, and a distance function between selves that is separate from considerations of future happiness.

scholarly journals O pięknie w pracy prawnika

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-28
Author(s):  
Tomasz Barszcz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Professional Work ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

The article concerns the relationship between beauty and a lawyer’s professional work. I attempt to: 1) discover and describe the activities that are particular of such work as well as are determined by beauty; 2) characterize the way in which beauty determines these activates; and 3) point out ontological reasons of this determination. The reflections do not, however, include all activities which the lawyer’s craft consists in, but are limited to those in the course of which decisions are made. Beauty determines a lawyer’s work via the process of decision-making; and if a decision is conceived as an act of cooperation between intellect and will, then the decision is related to beauty in three ways. First of all, beauty constitutes a sine qua non for finding out the circumstances in which the decision is made. Additionally, beauty suggests to the decision-maker the options as the optimal means to an end. Finally, beauty influences the approval of a decision already made.

Evolutionary Approaches to Rational Choice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Ekblom
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Situational Crime Prevention ◽  
Crime Science ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Brain And Behavior ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Brain

This chapter seeks to enrich and extend thinking about the rational choice perspective to offender decision making and its pivotal application in situational crime prevention by taking an evolutionary approach, which is still uncommon in crime science and criminology. The chapter introduces basic concepts of evolution, covering the brain and behavior, levels and types of explanation, the strained relationship with social science, and the evidencing of evolutionary processes. The focus then shifts to rationality, covering decision making; the wider suite of processes needed to understand rationality in action; and specific discussions of cooperation, humans’ wider “sociocognitive niche,” and development. Although evolutionary issues are addressed throughout, the penultimate section discusses how rationality in the broadest sense has unfolded over evolutionary history and the significant connection between maximization of utility in contemporary rational choice and maximization/optimization of fitness in evolution. The conclusion raises practical, empirical, and theoretical questions for crime science.

A New Stochastic MCDM Approach Based on COPRAS

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 857-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yelda Ayrim ◽  
Kumru Didem Atalay ◽  
Gülin Feryal Can
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Uniform Distribution ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Stochastic Structure ◽  
Random Numbers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Cost And Benefit ◽  
Criteria Importance

This study proposes a novel integrated Complex Proportional Assessment (COPRAS) approach by using stochastic decision process named as Stochastic COPRAS (COPRAS-S) to increase the evaluation performance of COPRAS. In COPRAS-S, criteria importance weights and the performance values of alternatives are determined by generating random numbers from uniform distribution in a range of minimum and maximum values of a limited number of decision-maker evaluations. Thus, the numbers of experts are increased and decision-making process is performed in an effective way because different opinions are incorporated. In addition, randomness feature brought with vagueness in decision is modeled in this process. A special normalization approach based on standard deviation is also implemented in COPRAS-S. In this way, cost and benefit type criteria are evaluated in a different way. This proposed stochastic structure for COPRAS is a practical and powerful tool that strengthens the decision.

Decision-Making in an Authoritarian Regime: Theoretical Implications from a Mexican Case Study

1973 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Kaufman Purcell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Authoritarian Regime ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
The Way

In recent years, as political scientists have witnessed the establishment of non-democratic governments in an ever-increasing number of countries, there has been renewed interest in the concept of an authoritarian regime. Despite its frequent use, however, the concept of an authoritarian regime rarely has been defined so that it could be applied in a comparative analysis. Furthermore, the theoretical utility of classifying a regime as “authoritarian” remains unclear. If the classification is to have some explanatory value, the way in which such a regime's defining characteristics produce distinctive political processes and behavior must be demonstrated.

scholarly journals Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia U. Maier ◽  
Anjali Raja Beharelle ◽  
Rafael Polanía ◽  
Christian C. Ruff ◽  
Todd A. Hare
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Neural Activity ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Time Varying ◽  
Drift Diffusion Model ◽  
Drift Diffusion ◽  
Relative Weighting

AbstractTheories and computational models of decision making usually focus on how strongly different attributes are weighted in choice, e.g., as a function of their importance or salience to the decision-maker. However, when different attributes impact on the decision process is a question that has received far less attention. Here, we investigated whether attribute consideration timing has a unique influence on decision making using a time-varying drift diffusion model and data from four separate experiments. Experimental manipulations of attention and neural activity demonstrated that we can dissociate the processes that determine the relative weighting strength and timing of attribute consideration. Thus, the processes determining either the weighting strengths or the timing of attributes in decision making can adapt independently to changes in the environment or goals. Quantifying these separate influences of timing and weighting on choice improves our understanding and predictions of individual differences in decision behaviour.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document