Advertisement

Behavioral Decision Theory and Good Decision Making

  • Kazuhisa Takemura
Chapter

Abstract

The final chapter of this book presents a critical examination of the psychological models of multi-attribute decision-making, findings obtained from them, and rational decision-making and considers what constitutes a “good decision.” First, a basic framework for ordinal utility theory based on Takemura (2011a, b) is presented as normative analysis and is examined in view of rationality. By subsequently defining the version of ordinal utility theory expanded to multi-attribute decision-making, we will re-interpret the rationality of multi-attribute decision-making based on Arrow's general possibility theorem. Re-interpretation of the general possibility theorem of Arrow (1951) suggests that the rational multi-attribute decision-making defined here could not be performed with the exception of one-dimensional decision-making based only on specific attributes. We descriptively analyze people’s multi-attribute decision-making to demonstrate, based on the psychological model of decision-making, the tendency of people to use one-dimensional decision-making to solve issues of multi-attribute decision-making. Finally, prescriptive examinations of multi-attribute decision-making are performed to support the argument that decision making from a pluralistic perspective results in a “good decision” even though one-dimensional decision-making should be avoided and even though rationality in the above sense might not be satisfied, particularly in important decision-making.

Keywords

Good Decision Prospect Theory Conjoint Analysis Uncertainty Avoidance Weak Order 
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.

References

  1. Aristotle (1971). Nikomakosu Rinrigaku [Trans. by S. Takada (Ed.), Nichomachean ethics]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berlin, I. (1990). The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas is the fifth in a series of essay collections by Isaiah Berlin, compiled and edited by Henry Hardy. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  5. Brandstätter, E., Giggerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113, 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmone, F. J., Green, P. E., & Jain, A. K. (1978). Robustness of conjoint analysis: Some Monte Carlo results. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 300–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattin, P., & Wittink, D. R. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowder, G. (1994). Pluralism & liberalism. Political Studies, 42, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crowder, G. (2002). Liberalism and value pluralism. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2001a). Risuku taido to chui : Jokyo izonteki shoten moderu ni yoru furemingu koka no keiryo bunseki [Risk attitude and attention: A psychometric analysis of framing effect by contingent focus model]. Kodo keiryogaku [The Japanese Journal of Behaviormetrics], 28, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2001b). Jokyo izonteki shoten moderu ni yoru furemingu koka no meta bunseki [ Psychometric meta-analysis of framing effect by contingent focus model] Nihon kodo keiryo gakkai dai 29 kai taikai happyou ronbun syorokusyu [Paper Presented at the 29th International Meeting of the Psychometric Society (IMPS 2001)] (pp. 164–167).Google Scholar
  12. Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2003). Attention, frames condition and decision making under risk: An empirical test of the contingent focus model using an eye gaze recorder. Paper presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Fujii, S., Takemura, K., & Kikkawa, T. (2002). Kimekata to goi keisei: Shakaiteki jiremma ni okeru rikoteki doki no yokusei ni mukete [Decision strategy and consensus formation: Towards inhibition of selfish motive in social dilemma]. Dobokugakkai rombunshu [Proceedings of Japan Society of Civil Engineers], 709, 13–26.Google Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Ideno, T., Okubo, S., Tamari, Y., Abe, S., & Takemura, K. (2012). Ishi kettei katei ni kansuru shitsumon-shi shakudo no kaihatsu [Development of questionnaire of decision making process]. The 16th Experimental Social Science Conference, Tokyo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  17. Karmakar, U. S. (1978). Subjective weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kojima, S. (1959). Shohisha shinri no kenkyu. Nihon Seisansei Honbu [Consumer Psychology]. Japan Productivity Center.Google Scholar
  19. Kojima, S. (1994). Psychological approach to consumer buying decisions: Analysis of the psychological purse and psychology of price. Japanese Psychological Research, 36, 10–19.Google Scholar
  20. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement volume 1: Additive and polynomial representations. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Louviere, J. J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision-making. In P. C. Humphreys, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes (pp. 343–369). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montgomery, H. (1993). The search for a dominance structure in decision-making: Examining the evidence. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision-making in action: Models and methods (pp. 182–187). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  25. Okubo, S., & Takemura, K. (2011). Shirizu shohisha kodo to maketeingu 2 gankyu undo sokutei to shohisha kodo [Consumer behavior and marketing (2) measurement of the eye movement and consumer behavior]. Seni seihin shohi kagaku [Journal of the Japan Research Association for Textile End-uses], 52(12), 744–750.Google Scholar
  26. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability Weighting Function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.Google Scholar
  27. Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Selart, M. (1997). Aspects of compatibility and construction of preference. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 58–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., & Nerlove, S. (Eds.). (1972). Multidimensional scaling (Vol. I). New York: Seminar.Google Scholar
  30. Takahashi, N., Takemura, k., Ideno, T., Okubo, S., & Tamari, Y. (2010). Aimai Jitai Ni Okeru Keishikisei Tsuikyu Keiko Ga Soshikinai Deno Ihan Ni Taisuru Ishiki To Shakai Handan Ni Ataeru Eikyo [Effect of tendency to seek formality in ambiguous situations on the awareness of violation in an organization and social judgment]. Presentation at the 51st Conference of the Japanese Society of Social Psychology (pp. 762–763) (In Japanese).Google Scholar
  31. Takemura, K. (1994). The contingent focus model of the framing effect. Japanese Psychological Review, 37(3), 270–193.Google Scholar
  32. Takemura, K. (1996). Ishikettei no shinri – sono katei no tankyu, Fukumura Shuppan [Psychology of decision-making: Investigation of its process]. Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Takemura, K. (1998). Jokyo izonteki isikettei no teiseiteki moderu: Shinteki monosashi riron niyoru setsumei [Qualitative model of contingent decision-making: An explanation of using the mental ruler theory]. Ninchi Kagaku (Cognitive Studies), 5(4), 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Takemura, K. (2001). Contingent decision making in the social world. In C. M. Allwood & S. Selart (Eds.), Decision-making: Social and creative dimensions (pp. 153–173). Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takemura, K. (2011a). Tazokusei ishikettei no shinri moderu to yoi ishikettei [Model of multi-attribute decision making and good decision]. Opereshonzu risachi [Operations Research], 56(10), 583–590 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  36. Takemura, K. (2011b). Shirizu shohisha kodo to maketeingu (1) shohisha no tazokusei ishikettei to sono bunseki [Consumer behavior and marketing (1) consumer decision-making by other attributes and its analysis]. Seni seihin shohi kagaku [Journal of the Japan Research Association for Textile End-uses], 52(11), 670–677.Google Scholar
  37. Takemura, K., & Fujii, S. (2014). Ishikettei no shoho-Jokyo izon syoten moderu no tenkai, Asakura Shoten [Prescription of decision making: Development of contingent focus model]. Tokyo: Asakura Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Takemura, K., Wakayama, D., & Horiuchi, K. (2004). Kokoku juyo no suri shinri moderu to deta kaiseki ho no kaihatsu: shohisha no handan to ishikettei no shinri jikken to chosa kenkyu wo tsujite [Development of mathematical model and data analysis method of consumer advertising response: Through psychological experiment and survey research]. Kokoku Kagaku [Journal of Advertising Science (Japan Academy of Advertising)], 45, 153–172 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  39. Tversky, A., & Fox, C. R. (1995). Weighting risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in the prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tversky, A., & Wakker, P. (1995). Risk attitudes and decision weight. Econometrica, 63, 1255–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuhisa Takemura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations