Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grundbegriffe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Die Psychologie der Entscheidung

  • 28k Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Eine Entscheidungssituation wurde in Kap. 1 dadurch charakterisiert, dass eine Person mindestens zwei Optionen sieht, zwischen denen sie eine Wahl treffen will (oder soll oder muss). Optionen stellen also die wesentliche Komponente von Entscheidungsproblemen dar. Andere Komponenten von Entscheidungsproblemen sind die vom Entscheider antizipierten Konsequenzen dieser Handlungsoptionen, seine Bewertungsmaßstäbe, seine Werte, Ziele und Gründe sowie solche Ereignisse in der Umwelt, die durch ihn nicht kontrollierbar sind, aber einen Einfluss darauf haben, welche Konsequenzen sich tatsächlich ergeben. Im ersten Abschnitt dieses Kapitels erläutern wir die wichtigsten Komponenten von Entscheidungsproblemen.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 139–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and deciding (4. Aufl.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2012). Judgment in managerial decision making (8. Aufl.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (Hrsg.). (2005). The routines of decision making. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1980). In one word: not from experience. Acta Psychologica, 45(1–3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(80)90034-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. (1996). Making hard decisions. An introduction to decision analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, T., Arkes, H., & Hammond, K. R. (Hrsg.). (2000). Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, R. M. (1980). Decisions that might not get made. In T. S. Wallsten (Hrsg.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (S. 47–67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D. (1976). Problemlösen als Informationsverarbeitung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., & Langer, T. (2010). Rationales Entscheiden (5. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1996). The real world: What good is it? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 232–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2015). Simply rational. Decision making in the real world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Hrsg.). (2002). Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (1997). Judgment and decision research: some historical context. In W. M. Goldstein, & R. M. Hogarth (Hrsg.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections, and controversies (S. 3–65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 653–683. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.653.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2010). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of judgment and decision making (2. Aufl.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennen, L., Petermann, T., & Schmitt, J. J. (1996). Genetische Diagnostik – Chancen und Risiken: Der Bericht des Büros für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung zur Genomanalyse. Berlin: Edition Sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(12), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holler, M. J., & Illing, G. (2009). Einführung in die Spieltheorie (7. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Hrsg.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayten, P. J. (1994). The accident investigator’s perspective. In E.L. Wiener, B.G. Kanki, R. L. Helmreich, E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, & R. L. Helmreich (Hrsg.), Cockpit resource management (S. 283–314). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, D. J., & Harvey, N. (Hrsg.). (2004). Blackwell handbook of judgment & decision making. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leon, D. (1996). Endstation Venedig. Zürich: Diogenes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Hrsg.). (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (Hrsg.). (2007). Exotic preferences: Behavioral economics and human motivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision making. In P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Hrsg.), Analysing and aiding decision processes (S. 343–369). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. K., Shachter, R. D., & Nease, R. F. (1997). Representation and analysis of medical decision problems with influence diagrams. Medical Decision Making, 17(3), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9701700301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reb, J., & Connolly, T. (2009). Myopic regret avoidance: feedback avoidance and learning in repeated decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. L., & Shanteau, J. (Hrsg.). (2003). Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönpflug, M., & Schönpflug, U. (1995). Psychologie: Allgemeine Psychologie und ihre Verwirklichung in der Entwicklungs-, Persönlichkeits- und Sozialpsychologie (3. rev. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E. (Hrsg.). (2004). Preference, belief, and similarity. Selected writings by Amos Tversky. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1990). Some propositions for the classification of decision situations. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, & D. M. Messick (Hrsg.), Contemporary issues in decision making (S. 17–32). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 252–267. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., Zhang, J., & Gonzalez, R. (2004). Decision under risk. In N. Harvey, & D. J. Koehler (Hrsg.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 399–423). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, F. J. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking. Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. Forgas (Hrsg.), Feeling and thinking (S. 31–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Experimentelle Wirtschaftspsychologie, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Deutschland

    Hans Rüdiger Pfister

  2. Inst. für Psychologie und Arbeitswissenschaften, TU Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland

    Helmut Jungermann

  3. Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Olten, Schweiz

    Katrin Fischer

Authors
  1. Hans Rüdiger Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helmut Jungermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katrin Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pfister, H.R., Jungermann, H., Fischer, K. (2017). Grundbegriffe. In: Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53038-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-53038-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-53037-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-53038-2

  • eBook Packages: Psychology (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation