Advertisement

Integrating Compensatory and Noncompensatory Decision-Making Strategies in Dynamic Task Environments

  • Ling Rothrock
  • Jing Yin
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 21)

This chapter summarizes the ongoing work to analyze compensatory and noncompensatory decision-making behaviors using a common framework known as Brunswik's lens model. The authors begin with a survey of existing work in modeling compensatory decision-making behavior using the lens model and an overview of initial forays into noncompensatory modeling. An example is provided of an instance in which both compensatory and noncompensatory decision making may occur in the same task under different circumstances. Formulations of the lens models to account for both types of decision behaviors are then discussed followed by speculations on a consolidated framework to incorporate both models.

Keywords

Human Judgment Disjunctive Normal Form Decision Behavior Human Decision Process Lens Model 
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.
    L. R. Beach. Measures of linear and nonlinear models of decision behavior: Process tracing versus policy capturing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 31:331–351, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. M. Bisantz, A. Kirlik, P. Gay, D. Phipps, N. Walker, and A. D. Fisk. Modeling and analysis of a dynamic judgment task using a lens model approach. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 30:605–616, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Bjorkman. Stimulus-event learning and event learning as concurrent processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2:219–236, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Brunswik. Thing consistency as measured by correlation coefficient. Psychological Review, 47:69–78, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Brunswik. Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62:193–217, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. W. Cooksey. Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Academic Press, San Diego, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. A. DeJong, W. M. Spears, and D. F. Gordon. Using genetic algorithms for concept learning. Machine Learning, 13:161–188, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. J. Einhorn. The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 73:221–230, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Elrod, R. D. Johnson, and J. White. A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95:1–19, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Ganzach and B. Czaczkes. On detecting nonlinear noncompensatory judgment strategies: Comparison of alternative regression models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61:168–176, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Gigerenzer and D. G. Goldstein. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103:650–669, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. J. Hoffman. The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 47:116–131, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Hogarth. Judgement and Choice. Wiley, New York, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. H. Holland, K. F. Holyoak, R. E. Nisbett, and P. R. Thagard. Induction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. J. Hursch, K. R. Hammond, and J. L. Hursch. Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies. Psychological Review, 71:42–60, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. R. MacCrimmon and D. M. Messick. A framework for social motives. Behavioral Science, 21:86–100, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Mendelson. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. Chapman & Hall, London, fourth edition, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. W. Payne. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16:366–387, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. W. Payne, J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    L. Rothrock and A. Kirlik. Inferring rule-based strategies in dynamic judgment tasks: Toward a noncompensatory formulation of the lens model. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, 33:58–72, 2003, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. Rothrock and A. Kirlik. Inferring fast and frugal heuristics from human judgment data. In A. Kirlik, editor, Adaptive Perspectives on Human-Technology Interaction: Methods and Models for Cognitive Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction, pages 131–148. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    L. Rothrock, J. Ventura, and S. Park. An optimization methodology to investigate operator impact on quality of service. In Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. G. Schneider and T. I. Selling. A comparison of compensatory and noncompensatory models of judgment: Effects of task predictability and degrees of freedom. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21:3–22, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O. Svenson. Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 23:86–112, 1979.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. R. Tucker. Suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch, and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd. Psychological Review, 71:528–530, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79:77–94, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Yin and L. Rothrock. A rule-based lens model. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36:499–509, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ling Rothrock
    • 1
  • Jing Yin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing EngineeringPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations