1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 What is decision making?

Decision making can be regarded as the mental processes (cognitive process)
resulting in the selection of a course of action among several alternatives. Every decision
making process produces a final choice.[1] The output can be an action or an opinion of
choice.

1.2 Overview:

Human performance in decision-making terms has been the subject of active research
from several perspectives. From a psychological perspective, it is necessary to examine
individual decisions in the context of a set of needs, preferences an individual has and values
they seek. From a cognitive perspective, the decision making process must be regarded as a
continuous process integrated in the interaction with the environment. From a normative
perspective, the analysis of individual decisions is concerned with the logic of decision
making and rationality and the invariant choice it leads to.[2]

Yet, at another level, it might be regarded as a problem solving activity which is terminated
when a satisfactory solution is found. Therefore, decision making is a reasoning or emotional
process which can be rational or irrational, can be based on explicit assumptions or tacit
assumptions.

Logical decision making is an important part of all science-based professions, where

specialists apply their knowledge in a given area to making informed decisions. For example,
medical decision making often involves making a diagnosis and selecting an appropriate
treatment. Some research using naturalistic methods shows, however, that in situations with
higher time pressure, higher stakes, or increased ambiguities, experts use intuitive decision
making rather than structured approaches, following a recognition primed decision approach
to fit a set of indicators into the expert's experience and immediately arrive at a satisfactory
course of action without weighing alternatives. Recent robust decision efforts have formally
integrated uncertainty into the decision making process. However, Decision Analysis,
recognized and included uncertainties with a structured and rationally justifiable method of
decision making since its conception in 1964.

A major part of decision making involves the analysis of a finite set of alternatives described
in terms of some evaluative criteria. These criteria may be benefit or cost in nature. Then the
problem might be to rank these alternatives in terms of how attractive they are to the decision
maker(s) when all the criteria are considered simultaneously. Another goal might be to just
find the best alternative or to determine the relative total priority of each alternative (for
instance, if alternatives represent projects competing for funds) when all the criteria are
considered simultaneously. Solving such problems is the focus of multi-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) also known as multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). This area of
decision making, although it is very old and has attracted the interest of many researchers and
practitioners, is still highly debated as there are many MCDA / MCDM methods which may
yield very different results when they are applied on exactly the same data.[3] This leads to the
formulation of a decision making paradox.

We use our decision making skills to solve problems by selecting one course of action from
several possible alternatives. Decision making skills are also a key component of time
management skills.

[edit] Problem Analysis vs Decision Making

It is important to differentiate between problem analysis and decision making. The concepts
are completely separate from one another. Problem analysis must be done first, then the
information gathered in that process may be used towards decision making.[4]

Problem Analysis
• Analyze performance, what should the results be against what they actually are
• Problems are merely deviations from performance standards
• Problem must be precisely identified and described
• Problems are caused by some change from a distinctive feature
• Something can always be used to distinguish between what has and hasn't been effected by
a cause
• Causes to problems can be deducted from relevant changes found in analyzing the problem
• Most likely cause to a problem is the one that exactly explains all the facts

Decision Making
• Objectives must first be established
• Objectives must be classified and placed in order of importance
• Alternative actions must be developed
• The alternative must be evaluated against all the objectives
• The alternative that is able to achieve all the objectives is the tentative decision
• The tentative decision is evaluated for more possible consequences
• The decisive actions are taken, and additional actions are taken to prevent any adverse
consequences from becoming problems and starting both systems (problem analysis and
decision making) all over again

Everyday techniques
Some of the decision making techniques people use in everyday life include:

 Pros and Cons: Listing the advantages and disadvantages of each option, popularized
by Plato and Benjamin Franklin
 Simple Prioritization: Choosing the alternative with the highest probability-weighted
utility for each alternative (see Decision Analysis) or derivative Possibilianism:
Acting on choices so as not to preclude alternative understandings of equal
probability, including active exploration of novel possibilities and emphasis on the
 necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege
one over the others.
 Satisficing: Accepting the first option that seems like it might achieve the desired
result
 Acquiesce to a person in authority or an "expert", just following orders
 Flipism: Flipping a coin, cutting a deck of playing cards, and other random or
coincidence methods
 Prayer, tarot cards, astrology, augurs, revelation, or other forms of divination

Decision-Making Stages
Developed by B. Aubrey Fisher, there are four stages that should be involved in all group
decision making. These stages, or sometimes called phases, are important for the decision-
making process to begin

Orientation stage- This phase is where members meet for the first time and start to get to
know each other.

Conflict stage- Once group members become familiar with each other, disputes, little fights
and arguments occur. Group members eventually work it out.

Emergence stage- The group begins to clear up vague in opinions is talked about.

Reinforcement stage- Members finally make a decision, while justifying themselves that it
was the right decision.

Decision-Making Steps
When in an organization and faced with a difficult decision, there are several steps one can
take to ensure the best possible solutions will be decided. These steps are put into seven
effective ways to go about this decision making process (McMahon 2007).

The first step - Outline your goal and outcome. This will enable decision makers to see
exactly what they are trying to accomplish and keep them on a specific path.

The second step - Gather data. This will help decision makers have actual evidence to help
them come up with a solution.

The third step - Brainstorm to develop alternatives. Coming up with more than one solution
ables you to see which one can actually work.

The fourth step - List pros and cons of each alternative. With the list of pros and cons, you
can eliminate the solutions that have more cons than pros, making your decision easier.

The fifth step - Make the decision. Once you analyze each solution, you should pick the one
that has many pros (or the pros that are most significant), and is a solution that everyone can
agree with.
The sixth step - Immediately take action. Once the decision is picked, you should implement
it right away.

The seventh step - Learn from, and reflect on the decision making. This step allows you to
see what you did right and wrong when coming up, and putting the decision to use.

Cognitive and personal biases

Biases can creep into our decision making processes. Many different people have made a
decision about the same question (e.g. "Should I have a doctor look at this troubling breast
cancer symptom I've discovered?" "Why did I ignore the evidence that the project was going
over budget?") and then craft potential cognitive interventions aimed at improving decision
making outcomes.

Below is a list of some of the more commonly debated cognitive biases.

 Selective search for evidence (a.k.a. Confirmation bias in psychology) (Scott Plous,
1993) – We tend to be willing to gather facts that support certain conclusions but
disregard other facts that support different conclusions. Individuals who are highly
defensive in this manner show significantly greater left prefrontal cortex activity as
measured by EEG than do less defensive individuals.[5]
 Premature termination of search for evidence – We tend to accept the first alternative
that looks like it might work.
 Inertia – Unwillingness to change thought patterns that we have used in the past in the
face of new circumstances.
 Selective perception – We actively screen-out information that we do not think is
important. (See prejudice.) In one demonstration of this effect, discounting of
arguments with which one disagrees (by judging them as untrue or irrelevant) was
decreased by selective activation of right prefrontal cortex.[6]
 Wishful thinking or optimism bias – We tend to want to see things in a positive light
and this can distort our perception and thinking.[7]
 Choice-supportive bias occurs when we distort our memories of chosen and rejected
options to make the chosen options seem more attractive.
 Recency – We tend to place more attention on more recent information and either
ignore or forget more distant information. (See semantic priming.) The opposite effect
in the first set of data or other information is termed Primacy effect (Plous, 1993).
 Repetition bias – A willingness to believe what we have been told most often and by
the greatest number of different sources.
 Anchoring and adjustment – Decisions are unduly influenced by initial information
that shapes our view of subsequent information.
 Group think – Peer pressure to conform to the opinions held by the group.
 Source credibility bias – We reject something if we have a bias against the person,
organization, or group to which the person belongs: We are inclined to accept a
statement by someone we like. (See prejudice.)
 Incremental decision making and escalating commitment – We look at a decision as a
small step in a process and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. This
can be contrasted with zero-based decision making. (See slippery slope.)
  Attribution asymmetry – We tend to attribute our success to our abilities and talents,
but we attribute our failures to bad luck and external factors. We attribute other's
success to good luck, and their failures to their mistakes.
 Role fulfillment (Self Fulfilling Prophecy) – We conform to the decision making
expectations that others have of someone in our position.
 Underestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control – We tend to underestimate
future uncertainty because we tend to believe we have more control over events than
we really do. We believe we have control to minimize potential problems in our
decisions.

Reference class forecasting was developed to eliminate or reduce cognitive biases in decision
making.

Post decision analysis

Evaluation and analysis of past decisions is complementary to decision making; see also
mental accounting.

Cognitive styles
Influence of Briggs Myers type

According to behavioralist Isabel Briggs Myers, a person's decision making process depends
to a significant degree on their cognitive style.[8] Myers developed a set of four bi-polar
dimensions, called the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The terminal points on these
dimensions are: thinking and feeling; extroversion and introversion; judgment and perception;
and sensing and intuition. She claimed that a person's decision making style correlates well
with how they score on these four dimensions. For example, someone who scored near the
thinking, extroversion, sensing, and judgment ends of the dimensions would tend to have a
logical, analytical, objective, critical, and empirical decision making style. However, some
psychologists say that the MBTI lacks reliability and validity and is poorly constructed.

Other studies suggest that these national or cross-cultural differences exist across entire
societies. For example, Maris Martinsons has found that American, Japanese and Chinese
business leaders each exhibit a distinctive national style of decision making.[9]

Optimizing vs. satisficing

Herbert Simon coined the phrase "bounded rationality" to express the idea that human
decision-making is limited by available information, available time, and the information-
processing ability of the mind. Simon also defined two cognitive styles: maximizers try to
make an optimal decision, whereas satisficers simply try to find a solution that is "good
enough". Maximizers tend to take longer making decisions due to the need to maximize
performance across all variables and make tradeoffs carefully; they also tend to more often
regret their decisions.[10]

Combinatoral vs. positional

Styles and methods of decision making were elaborated by the founder of Predispositioning
Theory, Aron Katsenelinboigen. In his analysis on styles and methods Katsenelinboigen
referred to the game of chess, saying that “chess does disclose various methods of operation,
notably the creation of predisposition—methods which may be applicable to other, more
complex systems.”[11]

In his book Katsenelinboigen states that apart from the methods (reactive and selective) and
sub-methods (randomization, predispositioning, programming), there are two major styles –
positional and combinational. Both styles are utilized in the game of chess. According to
Katsenelinboigen, the two styles reflect two basic approaches to the uncertainty: deterministic
(combinational style) and indeterministic (positional style). Katsenelinboigen’s definition of
the two styles are the following.

The lists in this article may contain items that are not notable, not encyclopedic, or not
helpful. Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into
the main body of the article. (February 2008)

The combinational style is characterized by

 a very narrow, clearly defined, primarily material goal, and

 a program that links the initial position with the final outcome.

In defining the combinational style in chess, Katsenelinboigen writes:

The combinational style features a clearly formulated limited objective, namely the capture of
material (the main constituent element of a chess position). The objective is implemented via
a well defined and in some cases in a unique sequence of moves aimed at reaching the set
goal. As a rule, this sequence leaves no options for the opponent. Finding a combinational
objective allows the player to focus all his energies on efficient execution, that is, the player’s
analysis may be limited to the pieces directly partaking in the combination. This approach is
the crux of the combination and the combinational style of play.[11]

The positional style is distinguished by

 a positional goal and

 a formation of semi-complete linkages between the initial step and final outcome.

“Unlike the combinational player, the positional player is occupied, first and foremost, with
the elaboration of the position that will allow him to develop in the unknown future. In
playing the positional style, the player must evaluate relational and material parameters as
independent variables. ( … ) The positional style gives the player the opportunity to develop
a position until it becomes pregnant with a combination. However, the combination is not the
final goal of the positional player—it helps him to achieve the desirable, keeping in mind a
predisposition for the future development. The Pyrrhic victory is the best example of one’s
inability to think positionally.”[12]

The positional style serves to

a) create a predisposition to the future development of the position;

b) induce the environment in a certain way;
c) absorb an unexpected outcome in one’s favor;
d) avoid the negative aspects of unexpected outcomes.

The positional style gives the player the opportunity to develop a position until it becomes
pregnant with a combination. Katsenelinboigen writes:
“As the game progressed and defense became more sophisticated the combinational style of
play declined. . . . The positional style of chess does not eliminate the combinational one with
its attempt to see the entire program of action in advance. The positional style merely
prepares the transformation to a combination when the latter becomes feasible.”[13]

[edit] Neuroscience perspective

The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), orbitofrontal cortex (and the overlapping ventromedial
prefrontal cortex) are brain regions involved in decision making processes. A recent
neuroimaging study,[14] found distinctive patterns of neural activation in these regions
depending on whether decisions were made on the basis of personal volition or following
directions from someone else. Patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex
have difficulty making advantageous decisions.[15]

A recent study[16] involving Rhesus monkeys found that neurons in the parietal cortex not
only represent the formation of a decision but also signal the degree of certainty (or
"confidence") associated with the decision. Another recent study[17] found that lesions to the
ACC in the macaque resulted in impaired decision making in the long run of reinforcement
guided tasks suggesting that the ACC may be involved in evaluating past reinforcement
information and guiding future action.

Emotion appears to aid the decision making process: Decision making often occurs in the
face of uncertainty about whether one's choices will lead to benefit or harm (see also Risk).
The somatic-marker hypothesis is a neurobiological theory of how decisions are made in the
face of uncertain outcome. This theory holds that such decisions are aided by emotions, in the
form of bodily states, that are elicited during the deliberation of future consequences and that
mark different options for behavior as being advantageous or disadvantageous. This process
involves an interplay between neural systems that elicit emotional/bodily states and neural
systems that map these emotional/bodily states.

MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING

A major concern in management has been to understand and improve decision making.
Various
approaches have been proposed by psychologists, most based on a “divide-and-conquer”
strategy.
This strategy – also labeled “problem decomposition” – involves breaking a large decision
problem into smaller parts. The idea is not new: In a “Letter to Joseph Priestly,” Benjamin
Franklin was one of the first to describe a decomposition strategy.
The theoretical justification for this approach was outlined by Simon (1957) in his account of
“bounded rationality.” This concept says that cognitive processing limitations leave humans
with
little option but to construct simplified mental models of the world. As Simon (p. 198) put it,
a
person “behaves rationally with respect to this model . . . (although) such behavior is not even
approximately optimal with respect to the real world.”
There have been two approaches to management decision making (Huber, 1980). The first is
concerned with development and application of normative decision rules based on formal
logic
derived from economics or statistics. The second involves descriptive accounts of how people
actually go about making judgments, decisions, and choices.
NORMATIVE ANALYSES
As initially outlined by von Neumann and Morgenstern (1947) in Theory of games and
economic
behavior, a variety of techniques have been derived for making optimal decisions. A
distinction
is often drawn between riskless (certain outcomes) choices and risky (uncertain outcomes)
choices. Two examples of each approach are outlined here.
Certain Outcomes
Multi-Attribute Utility. This approach, abbreviated MAU, applies to decisions made with
moreor-
less certain outcomes. As described by Gardiner and Edwards (1975), MAU involves
obtaining
a utility value for each decision alternative and then selecting the alternative with the highest
value. The utility for an alternative is derived from a weighted sum of separate part utilities
for
various attributes. The MAU approach has been successfully applied to management
decisions
such as new plant sitings, personnel selection, and zoning decisions.
Linear Models. Initially based on multiple-regression analyses, linear models have been used
both to prescribe and to describe judgments under certainty. A major concern has been the
weights assigned to the cue (or attribute) values. Research has shown that equal weights, or
even
random weights, do as well as optimal weights in many settings. The robustness of linear
models
has allowed their use in many applied tasks, such as graduate school admissions, clinical
diagnosis,
and medical decision making (Goldberg, 1970).
Uncertain Outcomes
Decision-Tree Analysis. “A decision tree is a graphical model that displays the sequence of
decisions
and the events that comprise a (risky) sequential decision situation” (Huber, 1980, p. 118).
The approach involves laying out choice alternatives, uncertain events, and outcome utilities
as a
series of branches (hence the name “decision tree”). For each alternative, an expected value
(EV)
is computed as the average outcome value over all possible events. The optimal choice is then
the alternative with the highest EV. Decision trees have been used to guide risky decision
making
such as marketing strategy, plant expansion, and public policy planning.
Bayesian Networks. This approach combines elements of Bayesian probability theory,
artificial
intelligence, and graphical analysis into a decision analytic tool (Breese & Heckerman,
1999).
Starting with a “fully connected” network, all possible cause -and-effect linkages between
nodes
for a problem space are described. Through a process of “pruning” using computer
algorithms,
the structure of the network is simplified to essential links between nodes. This results in an
enormous reduction of problem complexity. The approach is being used to diagnose
computer
programming errors and to anticipate trouble spots around the world.
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES
Most, but not all, descriptive analyses of decision making were initially concerned with
accounting
for the discrepancies between normative rules (e.g., EV) and actual behavior. For instance,
Edwards (1954) modified EV by substituting subjective probabilities for objective
probabilities
and psychological utilities for payoff amounts to produce Subjectively Expected Utility
(SEU).
This model has become the starting point for descriptions of risky decision behavior.
However,
many other approaches have been offered by psychologists.
Social Judgment Theory (SJT)
Based on the “Lens Model” proposed by Brunswik (1952), Hammond (1955) developed a co
mprehensive
perspective on judgment and decision making. By adapting procedures from multiple
regression, this approach combines elements of both normative and descriptive analyses into
a
single framework. Central to SJT is the distinction between analytic and intuitive modes of
cognition.
The approach has been used to describe decisions by highway engineers and medical doctors
(Cooksey, 1996).
Information Integration Theory (IIT)
Analyses of the psychological combination rules used to combine information from multiple
sources reveals that people often average stimulus inputs when making judgments. Anderson
(1996) has shown repeatedly that an averaging rule is more descriptive than the adding or
summing
rule assumed in normative models (such as MAU). Through Functional Measurement, IIT
leads to the simultaneous evaluation of processing strategy and psychological values. The IIT
approach has been applied to marketing decisions, family choices, and expert judgments
(Phelps
& Shanteau, 1978).
Image Theory
As described by Beach (1990), “image th eory views the decision maker as possessing three
distinct
but related images, each of which comprise a particular part of his or her decision-related
knowledge” (p. 3). The value image consists of the decision maker’s values, beliefs, and
ethics
that collectively are labeled principles. The trajectory image consists of the decision maker’s
future
agenda (or goals). And the strategic image consists of various plans that have been adopted
to achieve the goals. Using these concepts, image theory has been applied to auditing,
childbearing,
and political decisions.
Heuristics and Biases
Tversky and Kahneman (1974) have argued that decisions are often made using
psychological
shortcuts or “heuristics.” For instance, the “representativeness” heuristic refers to a tendency
to
make probability judgments based on the similarity of an event to an underlying source; the
greater the similarity, the higher the probability estimate. Although easy to do
psychologically,
such heuristics often lead to “biases” in that releva nt information, such as base rates, may be
ignored.
This approach has been used to account for suboptimal decisions in accounting, management,
and marketing.
Fast and Frugal Heuristics
Simon (1957) developed “bounded rationality” to deal with two interloc king components:
the
limitations of the human mind, and the structure of the environment in which humans
operate.
For instance, “satisficing” (selecting the first option that meets acceptable standards) is a
cogn itively
simple, but often surprisingly efficient decision strategy. These ideas have been extended
by Gigerenzer and Todd (1999) to apply to various simple “fast and frugal” heuristics that
take
advantage of environmental constraints. These heuristics have been applied to help decision
making in medicine and forecasting.
Naturalistic Decision Making
This perspective was developed by Klein (1993) to account for on-line decision making by
experts
in time-sensitive environments. In situations such as fire fighting, there is not enough time
to apply normative choice rules. Instead, experienced decision makers frequently follow a “re
cognition-
primed decision making” strategy – they identify a single course of action through pattern
matching. The NDM approach has been applied in many real-world decisions, ranging from
military commands and intelligence analysis to medical diagnosis and accounting.
Expert Decision Making
Behind much of the advances in decision research has been the need for psychologists to help
professionals make better decisions. For instance, considerable effort has been extended to
understand
how clinical psychologists make decisions (Dawes, 1988). Although such analyses often
reveal that experts are biased in their decisions, there are many domains in which surprisingly
good decisions have been observed. For example, weather forecasts were reported by
Stewart, et
al. (1997) to make reliable and valid short-term predictions of precipitation and temperature.
Similarly, auditors were found by Krogstad, et al. (1984) to have an effective grasp of what
information
to use in assessing the accuracy of accounting statements.
CONCLUSIONS
Using both normative and descriptive approaches, there have been many successful
applications
of behavioral decision theory in management, business, and other settings. In large part, these
successes reflect the importance of Ben Franklin’s original insight into problem
decomposition:
Decision making can usually be improved by breaking a problem into parts, working on the
parts
separately, and then combining them to make a final decision.
REFERENCES
Anderson, N. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum
Associates.
Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts.
Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
Breese, J. S., & Heckerman, D. (1999). Decision-theoretic troubleshooting: A framework for
repair
and experiment. In J. Shanteau, B. A. Mellers, D. A. Schum (Eds.), Decision science and
technology: Reflections on the contributions of Ward Edwards. Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic
Publishers. (p. 271-287).
Brunswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: University of
Chicago
Press.
Cooksey, R. W., (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Dawes, R. M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego, Harcourt, Brace,
Janovich.
Edwards, W. The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 380-417.
Franklin, B. (1956). Letter to Joseph Priestly. In, The Benjamin Franklin sampler. NY:
Fawcett.
Gardiner, P. C., & Edwards, W. (1975). Public values: Multiattribute-utility measurement for
social decision making. In M. F. Kaplan & S. Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and
decision
processes. NY: Academic Press.
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. NY: Oxford
University
Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1970). Man versus model of man: A rationale, plus some evidence for a
method
of improving on clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 422-432.
Hammond, K. R. (1955). Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method. Psychological
Review,
62, 255-262.
Huber, G. P. (1980). Managerial decision making. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in
action:
Models and methods. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Krogstad, J. L., Ettenson, R. T., & Shanteau, J. (1984). Context and experience in auditors’
mat eriality
judgments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 4, 54-73.