Decision Making and Action

The Search for a Dominance Structure
  • Henry Montgomery
Part of the The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology book series (SSSC)

Abstract

There is a close link between decision making and action. By making a decision a person commits herself to act in a certain way. However, in behavioral decision research, the link between decision making and action is largely neglected. The reason may be that decision making primarily is seen as a question of forming preferences, i.e., a question of finding the better or best alternative. However, in contrast to decisions preferences are not necessarily linked to actions. An individual may prefer alternative x to alternative y without committing herself to any action. That is, the alternatives in preferences need not be action alternatives (e.g., preferences among articles of consumption), which always is true in a decision situation (e.g., in decisions to buy an article of consumption).

Keywords

Decision Making Promising Alternative Human Decision Process Consolidation Theory Preference Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ariely, D., and Wallsten, T. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: An explanation of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod, P. (Ed.), (1976). Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  3. Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, Eng.: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Beach, L. R., and Lipshitz, R. (1993). Why classical decision theory is an appropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 21–35 ). Norwood, N J: Ablex.Google Scholar
  5. Beckmann, J., and Kuhl, J. (1984). Altering information to gain action control: Functional aspects of human information processing in decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biel, A., and Montgomery, H. (1986). Scenarios in energy planning. In B. Brehmer, H. Junger-mann, P. Lourens, and G. Sevon (Eds.), New directions in research on decision making (pp. 205–218 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Blom Kemdal, A., and Montgomery, H. (1997). Perspectives and emotions in personal decision making. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, and O. Svenson (Eds.), Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 72–89 ). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Bockenholt, U., Albert, D., Aschenbrenner, M., and Schmalhofer, F. (1991). The effects of attractiveness, dominance, and attribute differences on information acquisition in multiattribute binary choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 258–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brehmer, B. (1990). Strategies in real-time dynamic decision making. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 262–279 ). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, M. S. (1993). The naturalistic basis of decision biases. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 51–99 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. S., Freeman, J. P., and Wolf, S. (1996). Metarecognition in time-stressed decision making: Recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Human Factors, 38, 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlstrand, U., and Montgomery, H. (1984). Information search and evaluative processes in decision making: A computer based process tracing study. Acta Psychologica, 56, 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380–417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, G. W., and Hawkins, S. A. (1993). Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 580–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallhofer, I., and Saris, W. (1989). Decision trees and decision rules in politics: The empirical decision analysis procedure. In H. Montgomery and O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making (pp. 293–311 ). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Garvill, J., Gärling, T., Lindberg, E., and Montgomery, H. (1991, August). In search of evidence for dominance structuring in decision making. Paper presented at the 13th European Research Conference of Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making, Fribourg, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  20. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In T. E. Higgins and R. M. Sorrentiono (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92 ). New York: Guiford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., Ratajezah, H. (1990). From weighing to willing: Approaching a change decision through pre-or postdecisional mentation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processess, 45, 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., and Puto, C. (1980). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. Psychometrica, 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  24. Kant, I. (1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals (L. W. Beck, Trans.). New York: BobbsMerrill. (Original work published 1785.)Google Scholar
  25. Kemdal, A. B., and Montgomery, H. (1995, August). Self reports of important real life decisions. Paper presented at the 15th conference on Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  26. Klein, G. A. (1993a). Arecognition primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 138–147 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, G. A. (1993b). Twenty questions: Suggestions for research in naturalistic decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 389–403 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  28. Klein, G. A., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., and Zsambok, C. E. (1993) (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation: Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewicka, M. (1997). Rational or uncommitted? Depression and indecisiveness in interpersonal decision making. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 227–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lichtenstein, S., and Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., and Montgomery, H. (1988). People’s beliefs and values as determinants of housing preferences and simulated choices. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 5, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., and Montgomery, H. (1989a, August). Decisions with incompletely described alternatives. Paper presented at the 12th European Research Conference on Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making, Moscow, SSSR.Google Scholar
  34. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., and Montgomery, H. (1989b). Differential predictability of preferences and choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., and Montgomery, H. (1989c). Subjective belief-value structures as determinants of preferences for and choices among housing alternatives. Journal of Consumer Policy, 12, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindberg, E., Gärling, T., and Montgomery, H. (1990). Intra-urban residential mobility: Subjective belief-value structures as determinants of residential preferences and choices (Umeä Psychological Reports, No. 197 ). Umeä: Department of Psychology, University of Umeä.Google Scholar
  37. Lipshitz, R. (1993). Converging themes in the study of decision making in realistic settings. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 103–137 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  38. Mann, L., Janis, I. L., and Chaplin, R. (1969). The effects of anticipation of forthcoming information on predecisional processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making. In P. C. Humphreys, O. Svenson, and A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes (pp. 343–369 ). Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montgomery, H. (1989). From cognition to action: The search for dominance in decision making. In H. Montgomery and O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making (pp. 23–49 ). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Montgomery, H. (1993). The choice of a home seen from the inside: Psychological contributions to the study of decision making in housing markets. In T. Gärling and R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Behavior and environment (pp. 317–341 ). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. Montgomery, H. (1994). Towards a perspective theory of decision making and judgment. Acta Psychologica, 87, 155–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montgomery, H. (1997). Surrender at Perevolochna: A case study of perspective and action control in decision making under stress. In R. Flin, E. Salas, M. Strub, and L. Martin (Eds.), Decision making under stress. Emerging themes and applications. Aldershot: Ash-gate.Google Scholar
  44. Montgomery, H., and Hemlin, S. (1991). Judging scientific quality: A cross-disciplinary investigation of professorial evaluation documents (Göteborg Psychological Reports, Vol. 21, No. 4 ). Göteborg: Department of Psychology, University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
  45. Montgomery, H., Gärling, T., Lindberg, E., and Selart, M. (1990). Preference judgments and choice: Is the prominence effect due to information integration or to information evaluation? In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, and D. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary issues in decision making (pp. 149–157 ). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  46. Montgomery, H., Selart, M., Gärling, T., and Lindberg, E. (1994). The judgment-choice discrepancy: Noncompatibility or restructuring? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Montgomery, H., and Svenson, O. (1989). A think aloud study of dominance structuring in decision processes. In H. Montgomery and O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decision making (pp. 135–150 ). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Orasanu, J., and Connoly, T. (1993). The reinvention of decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 3–20 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  49. Pennington, N., and Hastie, R. (1993). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 49, 123–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rasmussen, J. (1993). Deciding and doing: Decision making in natural contexts. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 158–171 ). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  51. Rohrman, B., and Borcherding, K. (1988, August). The cognitive structure of residential decisions: A longitudinal field study. Paper presented at the X XIV International Congress of Psychology, Sydney.Google Scholar
  52. Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., and Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sedek, G., Kofta, M., and Tyszka, T. (1993). Effects of uncontrollability on subsequent decision making: Testing the cognitive exhaustion hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1270–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Selart, M. (1996). Structure compatibility and restructuring in judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Selart, M., Montgomery, H., Romanus, J., and Gärling, T. (1994). Violations of procedural invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shafir, Simonson, and Tversky, T. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 49, 11–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective. American Economic Review, 73, 596–605.Google Scholar
  59. Soelberg, P. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Management Review, 3, 19–29.Google Scholar
  60. Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre-and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80, 143–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Svenson, O., and Hill, T. (1997). Turning prior disadvantages into advantages: Decision making through the looking glass of differentiation and consolidation theory. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, and O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 218–232 ). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, S. E., and Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tversky, A., Sattah, S., and Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighing in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tyszka, T. (1980). Contextual multiattribute decision rules. In L. Sjöberg, T. Tyszka, and J. Wise (Eds.), Decision processes and decision analysis. Lund: Doxa.Google Scholar
  67. Tyszka, T., and Wielochovski, M. (1991). Must boxing verdicts be partial? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Willén, H. (1994). How do couples decide about having their first child? An explorative study (Göteborg Psychological Reports, Vol. 24, No. 1 ). Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Montgomery
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations