Advertisement

Reducing Perceptual and Cognitive Challenges in Making Decisions with Models

  • Jenna L. Marquard
  • Stephen M. Robinson
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 21)

Decision makers face perceptual and cognitive challenges in understanding presentations of formal models used to support decisions. These presentations, often made by analysts who created the models, must allow the decision makers not only to acquire information but also to process that information into a form that they can use effectively for decision making.

This chapter illuminates the occurrence of eleven well-known perceptual and cognitive challenges that decision makers may face as they receive and use the results of formal models. It also discusses features of the modeling process that have either aided or hindered decision makers in overcoming these perceptual and cognitive challenges, and draws some conclusions about ways in which people might improve the modeling process to reduce the severity of perceptual and cognitive challenges and thereby to improve the decision-maker's effectiveness.

Using retrospective case analysis, with the known set of perceptual and cognitive challenges as themes, we examine the presence and nature of these themes across five modeling projects. The selected projects span diverse disciplines and vary in the type and complexity of the models developed and in the characteristics of the decision makers.

Through examination of the case studies, we see evidence of five of the perceptual and cognitive challenges and indication of an additional two challenges. These challenges stem from the nature of the model presentation, from the roles of the analyst and decision maker in the modeling process, or from factors external to that process. From the results of the case analysis we derive a condensed checklist of recommendations for analysts.

By identifying perceptual and cognitive traps along with their sources, this work provides insight not only into what challenges are likely to exist when decision makers use models as a part of their decision-making process, but also into how the structure of the modeling process and the model presentation allow those challenges to arise.

Keywords

Decision Maker Model Presentation Formal Model Risk Communication Case Study Research 
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. 1.
    M. V. Arena, J. F. Schank, and M. Abbott. The Shipbuilding and Force Structure Analysis Tool: A User’s Guide. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. A. Ausink. User’s Guide for the Compensation, Accessions, and Personnel Management (CAPM) Model. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2003.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. A. Ausink, J. A. K. Cave, and M. J. Carrillo. Background and Theory Behind the Compensation, Accessions, and Personnel Management (CAPM) Model. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. A. Ausink and A. A. Robbert. A Tutorial and Exercises for the Compensation, Accessions, and Personnel Management (CAPM) Model. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. L. Bernstein. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Borcherding and R. E. Schaefer. Aiding decision making and information processing. In M. Irle, editor, Decision Making: Social Psychological and Socio-economical Analysis, chapter 17, pages 627–673. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. B. Bromley. Academic contributions to psychological counselling. 1. A philosophy of science for the study of individual cases. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3:299–307, 1990.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. G. Cacuci. Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2003.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. C. Davies. Comparing Environmental Risks: Tools for Setting Government Priorities. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, and G. Sjoberg. A Case for the Case Study. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. D. Fine and D. Owen. Technocracy and democracy: Conflicts between models and participation in environmental law and planning. Hastings Law Journal, 56:901–982, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. F. Goeller, A. Abrahamse, J. H. Bigelow, J. G. Bolten, D. M. DeFerranti, J. C. DeHaven, T. F. Kirkwood, and R. Petruschell. Protecting an estuary from floods. Vol. 1, Summary report: A policy analysis of the Oosterschelde. Technical Report R-2121/1-NETH, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Greenberger, M. A. Crenson, and B. L. Crissey. Models in the Policy Process: Public Decision Making in the Computer Era. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. S. Hammond, R. L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. S. Holling. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England and New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. L. Janis and L. Mann. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. Free Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. G. March. Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. The Bell Journal of Economics, 9:587–608, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Onatski and N. Williams. Modeling Model Uncertainty. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., March 2003.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. Raiffa. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices Under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Raiffa. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. G. Sargent. Verification and validation of simulation models. In S. Chick, P. J. Sanchez, D. Ferrin, and D. J. Morrice, editors, Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference, pages 37–48, 2003.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211:453–458, 1981.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    University of Maryland. EnviRN. Online document, July 2005. http://envirn.umaryland.edu/.
  27. 27.
    C. J. Walters. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. K. Yin. Applications of Case Study Research, volume 34 of Applied Social Research Methods Series. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2003.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. K. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, volume 5 of Applied Social Research Methods Series. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, third edition, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenna L. Marquard
    • 1
  • Stephen M. Robinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations