Advertisement

Some Behavioural Aspects of Information Use in Decision Making: A Study of Clinical Judgements

  • S. L. Schwartz
  • I. Vertinsky
  • W. T. Ziemba
  • M. Bernstein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 130)

Abstract

This study investigates the behavioural uses of informational cues in clinical decision making. A sample of experienced physicians was asked to assign probabilities for accepting a given diagnosis on the basis of case profiles. Judgement processes of individuals were modeled. The investigation focused upon the selective use and value of cues in the diagnostic process with a special focus upon the impact of redundant information on judgements. Results suggest that decision makers do respond to cues selectively; even, at times drawing inconsistent inferences from different subsets of cues containing the same information. The study imples that information system designs should explictly take account of variations in the individual information structures of users (or perhaps, users should be trained to conform in their behavior to the theory(!)).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Birnbaum, M.H., (1973). “The devil rides again: correlation as an index of fit”. Psych. Bull., 79, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Birnbaum, M.H. (1974). “Reply to the devil’s advocates: don ‘t confound model testing and measurement”. Psych. Bull., 81, 854–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Dawes, R.M. (1971). “A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making”. American Psychologist, 26, 180–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [41.
    Einhorn, H.J. (1970). “The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making”. Psych. Bull. 73, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Einhorn, H.J. (1971). “Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information”. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Green, P.E. and F.J. Carmone (1974), “Evaluation of multi-attribute alternatives: additive versus configural utility measurement. Decision Sciences, 5, 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Goldberg, L.R., (1971). “Five models of clinical judgement: An empirical comparison between linear and nonlinear representations of the human inference process!’ Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 6, 458–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hoffman, P.J. (1960), “The paramorphic representation of clinical judgement. Psych. Bull. 47, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Hoffman, P.J., P. Slovic, and L.G. Rorer (1968), “An analysis of variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgement:’ Psych. Bull. 69, 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10]
    Kort F., (1968), “A nonlinear model for the analysis of judicial decisions”. The American Political Science Review 62, 546–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Slovic, P., (1966). “Cue consistency and cue utilization in judgement”. American Journal of Psychology 79, 427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Slovic, P. and S. Lichtenstein (1971). “Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing judgement”. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance 6, 649–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Vertinsky, I. (1972). “Methodology of Simulation and Experimentation for Social Planning”, in Experimentation and Simulation in Political Science, Lapona and Smoker (eds.), U. of Toronto Press, 1972, 409–448.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. L. Schwartz
    • 1
  • I. Vertinsky
    • 1
  • W. T. Ziemba
    • 1
  • M. Bernstein
    • 1
  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaCanada

Personalised recommendations