Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Relevance of Behavioral Decision Research for Decision Analysis

  • Chapter
Decision Science and Technology

Abstract

In 1954 and 1961 Ward Edwards published two seminal articles that created behavioral decision research as a new field of study in psychology (Edwards, 1954, 1961). The topics of this research include how people make decisions and how these decisions can be improved with tools and training. Behavioral decision research has been conducted in two distinct paradigms: the cognitive illusions paradigm and the engineering psychology paradigm. Both are, in different ways, relevant to decision analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abramson, B., Brown, J., Edwards, W., Murphy, A. H., & Winkler, R. L.(1996). HAILFINDER: A Bayesian system for predicting extreme weather. International journal of Forecasting, 7, 57–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J.S., Denniston, W.B., & Gordon, M.M. (1975). The use of the decomposition principle in making judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 257–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, H.F. & Barrett, B.E. (1997). Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42, 1515–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, H., von Winterfeldt, D., and Fischer, G.W. (1984). Empirical and theoretical relationships between value and utility functions. Acta Psychologica, 56, 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherding, K., Eppel, T. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1991). Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science, 37, 1603–1619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherding, K. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988). The effect of varying value trees on multiattribute evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 68, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y.H. & Luce, R.D. (1995). Tests of hypotheses about certainty equivalents and joint receipts of gambles. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 229–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T. (1986). Making hard decision. Boston: PWT Kent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T. and Dean, D. (1997). Decomposed versus holistic estimates of effort required for software writing tasks. Management Science, 43, 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, R. (1991). Experts in uncertainty. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M. & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 41, 380–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1961). Behavioral decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1962). Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processing. Human Factors, 4, 59–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1971). Social utilities. Engineering Economist, Summer Symposium Series, 6, 119–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1977). How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-7, 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W, Phillips, L.D., Hays, W.L., & Goodman, B.C. (1968). Probabilistic information processing systems: Design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, SSC-4, 248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhrn, H. & Hogarth, R.M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppel, T. (1990). Eliciting and reconciling multiattribute weights. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, W.R. (1985). Combining Individual Judgments. In G. Wright (ed.) Behavioral decision making. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W. (1977). Convergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W. (1995). Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 252–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W., Damodarran, N., Laskey, K.B., & Lincoln, D. (1987). Preferences for proxy attributes. Management Science, 33, 198–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G.W., & Hawkins, S. (1993). Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 580–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, P., & A. Tversky (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 422–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C. & Kochenburger, G.A. (1991). Two-piece von Neumann and Morgenstern functions. Decision Sciences, 10, 503–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielli, W.F. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1978). Are importance weights sensitive to the range of alternatives in multiattribute utility measurement? Technical Report No. 001922-6-T, Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettys, C.F., Mehle, T., Baca, S., Fisher, S., & Manning, C. (1979). A memory retrieval aid for hypothesis generation. Technical Report No. 27-7-79). Norman, Oklahoma: Decision processes Laboratory, University of Oklahoma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettys, C.F., Fisher, S.D., & Mehle, T. (1978). Hypothesis generation and plausibility assessments. Technical Report No. 15-10-78). Norman, Oklahoma: Decision processes Laboratory, University of Oklahoma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselli, E.E. (1964). Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, G. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1984). On the behavioral distinction between riskless value and risky utility. Technical Report, Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grygiel, M.L., Augustine, C.A., Cahill, M.A., Garfield, J.S., Johnson, M.E., Kupfer, C.D., Meyer, G.A., Roecker, J.H., Holton, L.K., Hunter, V.L. & Triplet, M.B. (1991). Tank waste disposal program redefinition. WHC-EP-0475, Richland, Washington: Westinghouse Hanford Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henrion, M., Fischer, G.W., & Mullin, T. (1993). Divide and conquer? Effects of decomposition on the accuracy and calibration of subjective probability distributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 55, 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, J.C., Kunreuther, H.C., & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1982). Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Science, 8, 931–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershey, J.C. & Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1985). Probability vs. certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement. Management Science, 31, 1213–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hora, S.C., Dodd, N.G., & Hora, J.A. (1993). The use of decomposition in probability assessment of continuous variables. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6,133–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. (1968) The foundations of decision analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-4, 211–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, R.S., von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1983). The quality and user acceptance of decision analysis performed by computer vs. analyst. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson & Anna Van (Eds.) Analyzing and aiding decision processes, Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 301–329.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann H., von Ulardt, I., & Hausman, L. (1983). The role of the goal for generating actions. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson & Anna Vari (Eds.) Analyzing and aiding decision processes. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 223–236.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. In S, Makridakis & S.C. Wheelwright (Eds.) Forecasting: TIMS Studies in Management Science, 12, 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1981). Analysis of preference dependencies among objectives. Operations Research, 29, 1105–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. (1992). Value-focused thinking. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. Personal Communication, June 13,1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1991). Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L.R. (1985). An empirical investigation of relative risk aversion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15, 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B. & Phillips, L.D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, P., & A. Tversky (Eds.) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 306–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P.W. & Fischer, G.W. (1991). Preferences for separating or combining events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (1988). Rank-dependent, subjective expected utility representations. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 305–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. (1991). Rank-and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles. Journal of Economic Theory, 53, 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. & Fishbum, P.C. (1991). Rank-and sign-dependent linear utility models for first order finite gambles. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 29–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. & Fishbum, P.C. (1995). A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 11, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. & von Winterfeldt. (1994). What common ground exists for descriptive, prescriptive, and normative utility theories? Management Science, 40, 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, D.G. & Armstrong, J.S. (1994). Judgmental decomposition: When does it work? International Journal of Forecasting, 10, 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer, M.L. (1987). Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences and insights. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7, 741–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer, M.W. & Keeney, R.L. (1987). A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis, 7, 173–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L.D. This volume.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitz, G.F., Sachs, N.J., & Heerboth, J. (1980). Procedures for eliciting choices in the analysis of individual decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 396–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E.C. (1979). Models of biases in judging sensory magnitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 777–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver, D.A. (1973). Correlational analysis of approximations and sensitivity for multiattribute utilities. Technical Report, Engineering Psychology Laboratory, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver, D.A. (1978). Assessing probabilities with multiple experts: Group interaction vs. mathematical aggregation. Technical Report No. 78–3, Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seaver, D.A., von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1978). Eliciting subjective probabilities on continuous variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillwell, W.G., Seaver, D.A., & Edwards, W. (1981). A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smidts, A. (1997). The relationship between risk attitude and strength of preference: A test of intrinsic risk attitude. Management Science, 43, 357–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetzler, C.S. & von Holstein, C.A. (1975). Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science, 22, 340–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.H. & Johnson, E. J. (1990) Gambling with house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Nitzsch, R. & Weber, M. (1993). The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements. Management Science, 39, 937–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D. (1980). Additivity and expected utility in risky multiattribute preferences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 121, 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D. (1994). Empirical tests of Luce’s rank-and sign-dependent utility theory. In A.A.J. Marley (Ed.) Choice, decision, and measurement: Essays in honor of R. Duncan Luce. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D. & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D. & Trauger, T. (1996). Managing electromagnetic fields from residential electrode grounding systems. Bioelectromagnetics, 17, 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainer, H. (1976). Estimating coefficients in linear models: It don’t make no nevermind. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 713–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. & Deneffe, D. (1997). Eliciting von Neuman-Morgenstem utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42, 1131–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. & Tversky, A. (1993). An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 147–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M., Eisenfuehr, F. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988). The effect of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science, 4, 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, USA

    Detlof von Winterfeldt

Authors
  1. Detlof von Winterfeldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kansas State University, USA

    James Shanteau

  2. Ohio State University, USA

    Barbara A. Mellers

  3. George Mason University, USA

    David A. Schum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

von Winterfeldt, D. (1999). On the Relevance of Behavioral Decision Research for Decision Analysis. In: Shanteau, J., Mellers, B.A., Schum, D.A. (eds) Decision Science and Technology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5089-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5089-1_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7315-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-5089-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation