scholarly journals Inequality Biases Third-Party Evaluation of Decision-Making for Others

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-38
Author(s):  
Kiri Kuroda ◽  
Yoshimatsu Saito
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Evaluation ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Inequality Aversion ◽  
Decisions For Others ◽  
Risky Decisions

People often need to make risky decisions for others, especially in policymaking, where a single decision can affect the welfare of a number of people. Given that risky decisions can yield variable outcomes and that people often evaluate policies after knowing the outcomes, the same risky policy can be evaluated differently depending on its outcome. Nevertheless, very little is known about how people make third-party evaluations of risky policies. Because people are sensitive to inequality among others, we predicted that the same policy would be evaluated more negatively if it leads to inequality rather than other outcomes. To examine this, we conducted a scenario experiment on risky and sure policies and investigated whether people’s distributive preferences moderated policy evaluation. We show that participants rated the risky policy lower when it yielded unequal situations between the recipients. Interestingly, participants did not evaluate the risky policy higher than the sure policy even when the risky policy yielded more desirable outcomes. In addition, participants who preferred sure distributions as decision makers or recipients showed the inequality aversion, whereas participants who preferred risky distributions showed no such pattern. Our results suggest that policy evaluation may be susceptible to the risks and inequality of outcomes among recipients.

Self–Other Differences in Decision-Making Under Risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 226-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingyi Lu ◽  
Xuesong Shang ◽  
Bingjie Li
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Emotional States ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
Behavioral Consequences ◽  
Decisions Under Risk ◽  
Decisions For Others ◽  
Interpersonal Concerns ◽  
Risky Decisions

Abstract. Decisions made for others reflect not only decision-makers’ cognitive and emotional states but also decision-makers’ interpersonal concerns. People who make choices for others will potentially be blamed for unappealing outcomes by others. Therefore, we hypothesize that individuals will seek sure gains (which increase individuals’ responsibility for desirable outcomes) and avoid sure losses (which decrease individuals’ responsibility for undesirable outcomes) when making risky decisions for others more than when making such decisions for themselves. The results of two studies show that making decisions for others (vs. oneself) promotes risk-averse choices over gains. This effect may be driven by the perceived responsibility associated with different options. When both options exhibit variance in outcomes, such self–other difference disappears. However, no self–other difference over losses was observed. Taken together, our research highlights interpersonal concerns in making decisions for others, as well as the behavioral consequences of these concerns in decisions under risk.

scholarly journals Multi-Attribute Decision Making Based on Probabilistic Neutrosophic Hesitant Fuzzy Choquet Aggregation Operators

Symmetry ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Songtao Shao ◽  
Xiaohong Zhang ◽  
Quan Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Aggregation Operators ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Third Party Logistics ◽  
The Third Party Logistics ◽  
External Space ◽  
The Third ◽  
Multi Attribute Decision Making

Take the third-party logistics providers (3PLs) as an example, according to the characteristics of correlation between attributes in multi-attribute decision-making, two Choquet aggregation operators adoping probabilistic neutrosophic hesitation fuzzy elements (PNHFEs) are proposed to cope with the situations of correlation among criterions. This measure not only provides support for the correlation phenomenon between internal attributes, but also fully concerns the incidental uncertainty of the external space. Our goal is to make it easier for decision makers to cope with this uncertainty, thus we establish the notion of probabilistic neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy Choquet averaging (geometric) (PNHFCOA, PNHFCOG) operator. Based on this foundation, a method for aggregating decision makers’ information is proposed, and then the optimal decision scheme is obtained. Finally, an example of selecting optimal 3PL is given to demonstrate the objectivity of the above-mentioned standpoint.

What Factors Moderate Self-Other Discrepancies in Decision Making? Results from a Vaccination Scenario

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dafina Petrova ◽  
Rocio Garcia-Retamero ◽  
Joop van der Pligt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Social Norm ◽  
Risk Attitudes ◽  
Sexually Transmitted ◽  
Transmitted Virus ◽  
The Social ◽  
Decisions For Others ◽  
Risky Decisions

AbstractWhen we make risky decisions for others, we tend to follow social norms about risks. This often results in making different decisions for others than we would make for ourselves in a similar situation (i.e., self-other discrepancies). In an experiment, we investigated self-other discrepancies in young adults’ decisions to purchase a vaccine against a sexually-transmitted virus for themselves or for another person (i.e., the target of the decision). When the target’s preferences were in line with social norms, surrogates showed large self-other discrepancies in line with these norms. When the target’s preferences were contrary to social norms, surrogates did not show self-other discrepancies in line with these preferences; instead they still followed social norms, F(1, 140) = 21.45, p < .001, ηp2 = .13. Surrogates with lower numeracy, F(2, 128) = 3.44, p = .035, ηp2 = .05, and higher empathy, F(2, 128) = 3.72, p = .027, ηp2 = .06, showed self-other discrepancies more in line with the target’s preferences, even when these were contrary to the norm. Surrogates whose own risk attitudes were contrary to social norms showed larger self-other discrepancies, F(1, 128) = 5.38, p = .022, ηp2 = .04. These results demonstrate that perceived social norms about risk can predict self-other discrepancies in risky decisions, even when the target’s preferences are known and at odds with the social norm. Further, the surrogates’ numeracy, empathy, and propensity to take risks influence the extent to which risky decisions for others resemble risky decisions for oneself.

Fuzzy-AHP

2017 ◽  
pp. 97-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nitin Kumar Sahu ◽  
Atul Kumar Sahu ◽  
Anoop Kumar Sahu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fuzzy Ahp ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Customer Relationship ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Party Logistics ◽  
The Third Party Logistics ◽  
The Third ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
The Third Party

Logistics activities are performed in order to balance the operational chains of firms. The selection of the Third Party Logistics (3PL) is a challenging task for each organization, which involves various factors and attributes. The presented methodology acts as a boon and aids the decision makers for effectively choosing the appropriate Third Party Logistics (3PL) network. In the revealed work, the authors explored fuzzy sets theory and presented a fuzzy AHP model to facilitate the managers of organizations to deal with the Third Party Logistics (3PL) decision making problems. The overall performance of defined Third Party Logistics (3PL) Service Providers are greatly influenced by many significant parameters: quality, reliability, service assurance, shipment cost, customer relationship, etc. The authors have considered various significant parameters: service level, financial security capabilities, location, global presence, relationship management, and client fulfillment representing first level indices. These parameters have chain of various sub-parameters, represented as second level indices, whose importance is affecting the judgment of the decision makers. Various researches have constraint their work up to first level indices and have not considered the second level indices, which is a crucial part of today's practical decision making process. The authors have considered this issue as research gap and transformed this research gap into research agenda. The authors applied an AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) accompanied with fuzzy set theory in order to solve industrial Logistics problems. The objective of chapter is to propose a fuzzy based AHP method towards solve benchmarking (preference orders of defined alternatives under criteria) problems. The presented method facilitates the managers of firms to make the verdict towards choosing the best Third Party Logistics (3PL) service provider. A numerical illustration is provided to validate the method application upon module.

scholarly journals An Interactive Decision-Making Method for Third-Party Logistics Provider Selection under Hybrid Multi-Criteria

Symmetry ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yumin Liu ◽  
Peng Zhou ◽  
Liyuan Li ◽  
Feng Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fuzzy Sets ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Third Party Logistics ◽  
Preference Information ◽  
Symmetry Principles ◽  
Interactive Decision Making ◽  
Ideal Solutions ◽  
Selection Of

Due to the complexity and uncertainty of third-party logistics (3PL) provider selection circumstances, the research on the hybrid multi-criteria decision-making (HMCDM) method with fuzzy hesitation information is becoming more and more important. Based on symmetry principles, both the objectivity of the decision information and the subjectivity of decision makers’ (DMs) preferences should be considered in the HMCDM method. In this paper, a novel interactive decision-making method to deal with the 3PL provider selection problem of hesitant fuzzy sets, intuitionistic fuzzy sets and real numbers is developed. We first investigate the positive and negative ideal solutions of the alternative and the satisfaction degree of the DMs under hybrid multi-criteria circumstances. Then, the interactive HMCDM models based on satisfaction degrees are established, which can use objective decision information to rank alternatives and, symmetrically, the preference information of the DMs is also taken into account. DMs can modify their preference information using the models and thus make the most reasonable selection of 3PL provider. Finally, the case analysis and sensitivity analysis show that the change of parameter and the setting of the satisfaction lower limit will not affect the optimal rank of alternatives, and the feasibility of the proposed method is confirmed.

TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR SEA FOLLOW-UP: THEORETICAL ISSUES AND LESSONS FROM POLICY EVALUATION

2007 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. 473-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
ÅSA PERSSON ◽  
MÅNS NILSSON
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Policy Evaluation ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Practical Experiences ◽  
Implementation Gaps ◽  
Theoretical Issues

Most SEA practice and research has focused on the pre-decision stages, whereas post-decision follow-up stages such as monitoring, evaluation, and management have been given far less attention. These stages, referred to as SEA follow-up, are integral to making SEA effective and learning-oriented. This paper takes the first step towards a framework for conducting SEA follow-up, by analysing the requirements for ex post activities according to the European SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), reviewing existing experiences and literature on how to perform SEA follow-up, and exploring lessons to be learnt from the adjacent fields of EIA follow-up and policy evaluation. The directive, along with most mainstream applications of SEA, is based on EIA follow-up concepts. However, SEA follow-up displays a number of critical differences, including: an enhanced risk of implementation gaps; a focus on performance rather than compliance; and less direct linkages between decisions and impacts. The paper argues that the SEA Directive is seriously constrained and that a more ambitious interpretation of SEA follow-up is necessary to enable strategic decision making and learning. Lessons from the policy/programme evaluation literature could strengthen SEA follow-up by giving it analytical rigour in relation to establishing causality and providing insights into the use and acceptance of SEA follow-up among decision makers and stakeholders. Further explorations into policy evaluation toolkits, and practical experiences in applying them, are needed to enhance the potential of SEA follow-up in supporting strategic decision making.

When risky decisions are not surprising: An application of prospect theory to the Israeli war decision in 2006

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 484-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anat Niv-Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Loss Aversion ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Risky Decisions

On 12 July 2006, Hezbollah operatives crossed into Israel and attacked a military patrol, killing three soldiers and kidnapping two more. In retaliation to this incident Israel launched a military operation that resulted in 34 days of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. The Israeli retaliation has been deemed to be severe and surprising. Furthermore, a public investigation commission established by the Israeli government implicated key decision-makers, and especially Prime Minister Olmert, as guilty of hasty and irresponsible decision-making. This article views this case through the lens of prospect theory, showing how the decision was made at the framing stage, and suggesting that this decision was not hasty but, rather, was consistent with the logic of loss-aversion.

scholarly journals Decision-makers use social information to update their preferences—but choose for others as they do for themselves

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Michael ◽  
Alina Gutoreva ◽  
Huixian Michele Lee ◽  
Peng Ning Tan ◽  
Eleanor M. Bruce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Context ◽  
Social Factors ◽  
Social Information ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Risky Decisions

People’s risky decisions can be highly influenced by the social context in which they take place. Across three experiments we investigated the influence of three social factors upon participants’ decisions: the recipient of the decision-making outcome (self, other, or joint), the nature of the relationship with the other agent (friend, stranger, or teammate), and the type of information that participants received about others’ preferences: none at all, information about how previous participants had decided, or information about a partner’s preference. We found that participants’ decisions about risk did not differ according to whether the outcome at stake was their own, another agent’s, or a joint outcome, nor according to the type of information available. Participants were, however, willing to adjust their preferences for risky options in light of social information.

scholarly journals The Ethics of Making Risky Decisions for Others

2019 ◽  
pp. 445-473
Author(s):  
Luc Bovens
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Charitable Giving ◽  
Formal Modeling ◽  
Risky Decision Making ◽  
Risky Decision ◽  
Decisions For Others ◽  
Risky Decisions

Utilitarianism, it has been said, is not sensitive to the distribution of welfare. In making risky decisions for others there are multiple sensitivities at work. I present examples of risky decision-making involving drug allocations, charitable giving, breast-cancer screening and Caesarian sections. In each of these examples there is a different sensitivity at work that pulls away from the utilitarian prescription. Instances of saving fewer people at a greater risk to many is more complex because there are two distributional sensitivities at work that pull in opposite directions from the utilitarian calculus. I discuss objections to these sensitivities and conclude with some reflections on the value of formal modeling in thinking about societal risk.

scholarly journals Affective Paternalism

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Dolan ◽  
Christian Krekel ◽  
Sarah Swanke
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Affective Reactions ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Entry Points ◽  
Shed Light

Many decisions are curated, incentivised, or nudged by a third party. Despite this, only a handful of studies have looked at paternalistic decision-makers and the processes by which they arrive at their decisions. The role of affect, in particular, has been ignored so far, and yet restricting agency on a potentially large group of people might be unpleasant – or indeed quite satisfying. We are the first to propose a conceptual framework of affective paternalism which explicitly accounts for the role of affect, identifying entry points where affect may create systematic variance (or noise) in paternalistic decisions. We shed light on some of these phenomena by using novel surveys and a randomised experiment in which we ask participants to make paternalistic decisions whilst also asking them about their affective reactions and randomly manipulating their affective states. Our findings suggest that affect may play a significant role in paternalistic decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document