Decision Theories and Methodologies

This chapter introduces the extant decision theories. Whereas the literature segments the field into the Normative, Descriptive, and Prescriptive theories, we identify a fourth. That is the Declarative strand of decision-making. We discuss all four strands of research and praxis. We locate our prescriptive paradigm in the Prescriptive segment. We discuss the question of what is a good decision and a good process. We will close this question in Chap. 10 after we have had the opportunity to illustrate the use of the machinery of our prescriptive paradigm in the main body of the book.

Abstract

Scientific knowledge, engineering science, and their best practices are cumulative. Every new idea and improvement is necessarily the result of standing on the shoulders of others. New knowledge, novel and useful practice are all part of evolving and connected strands of understanding, expertise and proficiency. The progression is cumulative and advancing to more insightful understanding and more effective practice. The trajectory is not necessarily a smooth one. There are many false starts and punctuated by what Kuhn (2012) calls paradigm shifts. We think of our approach as opening a new window in a magnificent structure and a modest punctuation. A new way to think about executive-management decisions. In this chapter, we show its multidisciplinary heritage rooted in mathematics, cognitive psychology, social science and the practice. We want to show its punctuated continuity with, and its debt to, the achievements of the past. Our debt, notwithstanding, we also draw contrasts between our engineering decision-design methods and other traditional methods.

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

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

Philosophy of Science for Management Theory, Practice, and Sci-fi Freaks

Philosophy of Science for Management Theory, Practice, and Sci-fi Freaks: An Introduction

Comments on “The nature of theory in information systems”

Notes

Edwards and von Winterfeldt (1986) write that “articles related to judgment and decision-making appeared in more than 500 different journals.” Under “decision theory,” Google scholar shows 1,870,000 citations, and Amazon.Books show 1744 titles. Downloaded January 15, 2017.

Aumann won the 2005 Nobel in Economics for work on the axioms of normative decision theory. The quote appears in Wolpin’s book (2013) “the Limits of Inference without Theory”.

References

• Adner, R., & Levinthal, D. A. (2004). What is not a real option: Considering boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 74–85. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Alexander, E. R. (1979). The design of alternatives in organizational contexts: A pilot study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 382–404. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l\’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 21(4), 503–546. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Amram, M., & Kulatilaka, N. (1999). Real options: managing strategic investment in an uncertain world. Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
• Arbel, A., & Tong, R. M. (1982). On the generation of alternatives in decision analysis problems. Journal of Operational Research Society, 33, 377–387. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins. Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 155–173. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Aumann, R. J. (1962). Utility theory without the completeness axiom. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 30, 445–462. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Axelrod, R. (1997). The complexity of cooperation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
• Barnett, M. L. (2005). Paying attention to real options. R&D Management., 35, 61–72. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding (3rd ed.). Cambridge. Google Scholar
• Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Judgment in managerial decision making (Fifth ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
• Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (1988). Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Belton, V., & Gear, T. (1982). On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11(3), 226–230. Google Scholar
• Bewley, T. F. (2002). Knightian decision theory. Part I. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 25(2), 79–110. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bodner, R., & Prelec, D. (2003). Self-signaling and diagnostic utility in everyday decision making. The Psychology of Economic Decisions, 1, 105–126. Google Scholar
• Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2009). Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), 3281–3288. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Brach, M. A. (2003). Real options in practice (Vol. 198). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Bracha, A., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias. Games and Economic Behavior, 75(1), 67–80. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Brealey, R. A., & Myers, S. C. (2002). Principles of corporate finance. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. F. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. In C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature., 43(1), 9–64. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. London: Sage. Google Scholar
• Charan, R., & Melino, M. (2013). You can’t be a wimp- make the tough calls. Harvard Business Review, 72–78. Google Scholar
• Connolly, T., & Zeelenberg, M. (2002). Regret in decision making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 212–216. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Copeland, T. & Tufano, P. (2004, March). A real-world way to manage real options. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
• Courtney, H., Lovallo, D., & Clarke, C. (2013). Deciding how to decide. Harvard Business Review, 91(11), 62–70. Google Scholar
• Crepel, P., Fienberg, S. E., & Gani, J. (2013). In C. C. Heyde & E. Seneta (Eds.), Statisticians of the centuries. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
• de Neufville, R. (2002). Architecting/designing engineering systems using real options. In Proceedings of the ESD Internal Symposium., May 29–30. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Google Scholar
• de Neufville, R. (2008). Low-cost airports for low-cost airlines: flexible design to manage the risks. Transportation Planning and Technology, 31(1), 35–68. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• de Neufville, R., & Delquié, P. (1998). A model of the influence of certainty and probability “effects” on the measurement of utility. In B. Munier (Ed.), Risk, decision, and rationality (pp. 189–205). Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar
• Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21(3), 215–231. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Revised ed.). Boston: DC Heath. Google Scholar
• Doherty, M. E. (2003). Chapter 20: Optimists, pessimists, and realists. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Drucker, P. F. (1993). Concept of the Corporation. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Google Scholar
• Drucker, P. F. (1995). People and performance: The best of Peter Drucker on management. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Drucker, P. F. (2016). The effective executive. London: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Dyer, J. S. (1990). Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36(3), 249–275. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Edwards, W. (1992). Chapter 10. Toward the demise of economic man and woman; Bottom lines from Santa Cruz. In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Chapter 2. Berlin: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Edwards, W., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1986). Chapter 40. On cognitive illusions and their implications. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 642–679). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Edwards, W., Miles, R. F., Jr., & D. von Winterfeldt. (Eds.). (2007). Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Eisenführ, F., Weber, M., & Langer, T. (2010). Rational decision making. Berlin: Springer. BookGoogle Scholar
• Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fichman, R. G., Keil, M., & Tiwana, A. (2005). Beyond valuation: “Options Thinking” in IT Project Management. California Management Review, 47(2), 74–96. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight/foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288–299. Google Scholar
• Fischoff, B. (1999). Debiasing. Chapter 31. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and bias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P. C. (1968). Utility theory. Management Science, 14(5), 335–378. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fjellman, S. M. (1976). Natural and unnatural decision-Making. Ethos, 4(1), 73–94. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469–486. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Frisch, D., & Clemen, R. T. (1994). Beyond expected utility: Rethinking behavioral decision research. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 46–54. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspectives on psychological science, 3(1), 20–29. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. London: Penguin. Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). In W. Edwards (Ed.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
• Goldstein, W. M., & Hogarth, R. M. (1997). Chapter 1: Judgment and decision research: Some historical context. In W. M. Goldstein & R. M. Hogarth (Eds.), Research on judgment and decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Griffin, D. W., Dunning, D., & Ross, L. (1990). The role of construal processes in overconfident predictions about the self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1128–1139. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices. New York: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
• Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D. O. (1986). Chapter 3: Social judgment theory. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 627–641). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. M. (1995). The impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons. Mind, 104(415), 473–490. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hazelrigg, G. A. (1996). Systems engineering: An approach to information-based design. London: Pearson College Division. Google Scholar
• Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Howard, R. A. (1992). Chapter 2: In praise of the old time religion. In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
• Howard, R. A. (2007). The foundations of decision analysis revisited. In W. Edwards, R. Miles, & D. von Winterfed (Eds.), Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (pp. 32–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (2004). The principles and applications of decision analysis (Vol. 1). San Mateo, CA: Strategic Decisions Group. Google Scholar
• Jungermann, H. (1986). Chapter 39: The two camps on rationality. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 627–641). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Thaler, R. H. (2006). Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 221–234. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Chapter 1: Choices, values, and frames. In Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Varey, C. A. (1990). Propensities and counterfactuals: The loser that almost won. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1101. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B. L., Schreiber, C. A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401–405. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Keefer, D. L., Kirkwood, C. W., & Corner, J. L. (2004). Perspective on decision analysis applications, 1990–2001. Decision Analysis, 1(1), 4–22. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Keeney, R. L. (1982). Decision analysis: an overview. Operations research, 30(5), 803–838. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Keeney, R. L. (1992a). On the foundations of prescriptive decision analysis. In W. Edwards (Ed.), Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Google Scholar
• Keeney, R. L. (1992b). Value focused thinking: A path to creative decision-making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
• Keeney, R. E. (1994). Using values in operations research. Operations Research, 42(5), 793–813. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92, 537–549. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Keren, G., & de Bruin, W. B. (2003). Chapter 16: On the assessment of decision quality: Considerations regarding utility, conflict and accountability. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Klein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Klein, G. A. (2001). Chapter 7: The fiction of optimization. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Klein, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 456–460. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Klein, G. (2011). In M. Sinclair (Ed.)., Handbook of intuition research Expert intuition and naturalistic decision making. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Klein, G. (2015). A naturalistic decision making perspective on studying intuitive decision making. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 164–168. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107–118. Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1999). Chapter 22: Calibration of Probabilities: the State of the Art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (1999 ed.). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Luehrman, T. A. (1998a). Strategy as a portfolio of real options. Harvard Business Review, September–October: 89–99. Google Scholar
• Luehrman, T. A. (1998b). Investment opportunities as real options: Getting started on the numbers. Harvard Business Review, July–August: 89–99 Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. The Free Press. Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1997). Chapter 2: Understanding how decisions happen in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• McCabe, K., Smith, V., & Chorvat, T. (2005). Lessons from neuroeconomics for the law. In F. Parisi & V. Smith (Eds.), The law and economics of irrational behavior (pp. 68–94). Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• McCord, M., & de Neufville, R. (1983). Fundamental deficiency of expected utility decision analysis. In S. French, R. Hartley, L. C. Thomas, & D. J. White (Eds.), Multi-objective decision making. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
• Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, 1, 20. Google Scholar
• Millet, I., & Saaty, T. L. (2000). On the relativity of relative measures–accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 121(1), 205–212. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Montgomery, D. C. (2008). Design and analysis of experiments. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Moon, J. A. (2004). A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice. Park Drive: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
• Morgenstern, O., & von Neumann, J. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1970). Truth and power. London: Praeger Publishers. Google Scholar
• Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Neely, J. E., III, & de Neufville, R. (2001). Hybrid real options valuation of risky product development projects. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 1(1), 29–46. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Otto, K. N., & Wood, C. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
• Parisi, F., & Smith, V. L. (2005). The law and economics of irrational behavior. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2016). The sure-thing principle. Technical Report R-466. Computer Science Department, UCLA. Google Scholar
• Pliske, R., & Klein, G. (2003). Chapter 17: The naturalistic decision-making perspective. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Google Scholar
• Prizes in Economic Sciences. (2015). http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/. Downloaded June 1, 2015.
• Redelmeier, D. A., & Kahneman, D. (1996). Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain, 66(1), 3–8. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Resnick, M. (1987). Choices: An introduction to decision theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Google Scholar
• Rieskamp, J., & Otto, P. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 207–236. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Roese, N. J., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Outcome controllability and counterfactual thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin., 21, 620–628. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Russo, J. E., Schoemaker, P. J., & Russo, E. J. (1989). Decision traps: Ten barriers to brilliant decision-making and how to overcome them. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency. Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Management Science, 36(3), 259–268. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (2009). Theory and applications of the analytic network process: Decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS publications. Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS publications. Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. A. (1952). Probability, utility, and the independence Axiom. Econometrica, 20(4), 670–678. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. Wiley Publications in Statistics. New York.Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
• Schooler, J. W., Ariely, D., & Lowenstein, G. (2003). The pursuit and assessment of happiness can be self-defeating. In I. Brocas & J. D. Carrillo (Eds.), The psychology of economic decisions (pp. 41–72). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Seering, W. P. (2003). Redefining engineering. In MIT Faculty Newsletter. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York: The Free Press. Google Scholar
• Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective. The American Economic Review, 73(4), 596–605. Google Scholar
• Soll, J. B., Milkman, K. L., & Payne, J. B. (2015). Outsmart your own biases. Harvard Business Review, 93(5), 65–71. Google Scholar
• Solow, R. M. (1980). On theories of unemployment. The American Economic Review, 1, 1–11. Google Scholar
• Spetzler, C. A. (2007). Chapter 22: Building decision competency in organizations. In H. R. Arkes & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 450–468). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Thomas, H., & Samson, D. (1986). Subjective aspects of the art of decision analysis: Exploring the role of decision analysis in decision structuring, decision support and policy dialogue. Journal Operational Research Society, 37(3), 249–265. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Triantaphyllou, E. (2001). Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10(1), 11–25. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Trigeorgis, L. (1997). Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. (1996). The mechanics of learning by doing: Problem discovery during process machine use. Technology and Culture, 37(2), 312–329. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• von Holstein, C. (2004). Chapter 6: A tutorial in decision analysis. In Howard & Matheson (Eds.), The principles and applications of decision analysis (Vol. 1). San Mateo, CA: Strategic Decisions Group. Google Scholar
• Weick, K. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishes. Google Scholar
• Wu, G., & Eriksen, S. (2013). Chapter 11, Old and new roles for expected and generalized. Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications, 3, 271–294. Google Scholar
• Yates, J. F., & Tschirhart, M. D. (2006). Decision-making expertise. In The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 421–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Yates, J. F., Veinott, E. S., & Patalano, A. L. (2003). Chap. 1: Hard decisions, bad decisions: On decision quality and decision aiding. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, M. R. (1997). In defense of a constructive, information-based approach to decision theory. Theory and Decision, 43, 21–44. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Zeckhauser, R. J. (1986). Comments: Behavioral versus rational economics: What you see is what you conquer. Journal of Business, 59(4), S435–S449. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Victor Tang
2. Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland Kevin Otto
3. Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Warren Seering

1. Victor Tang