On the Assessment of Decision Quality: Considerations Regarding Utility, Conflict and Accountability

During the course of their lives, people are faced with many decisions—covering a wide variety of contexts and ranging in importance. Common decision-making topics include career moves, whether to get married (and, if so, to whom and when), what house to rent (or buy), where to shop for groceries and what to have for dinner. The need for making a good decision grows as the importance of the context increases. Unfortunately, it is often not obvious what constitutes a good decision. At the bottom line, the question of decision quality is the essence of decision sciences: a main goal of researchers in the discipline is to help improve people’s decision making. Yet, with few exceptions (e.g., Edwards et al., 1984; Lipshitz, 1989, 1995; Hershey & Baron, 1992, 1995; Frisch & Jones, 1993; Frisch & Clemen, 1994), this topic has received relatively little attention in the literature. Several reasons may account for the reluctance to treat it directly. First, the topic may be seen as too broad and ill-defined, rendering it virtually impossible to be treated in a systematic and concise manner. A second, related, reason may be that various classes of decisions can be defined, each requiring different judgment criteria (e.g., von Winterfeldt, 1980). Third, the discussion of “decisions about decisions” introduces the concept of second-order decision making. In turn, this would expose third-, fourth-, and fifth-order decisions, and so on ad infinitum. A similar problem was identified

[1]  S. Asch Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[2]  N. Miller,et al.  Displacement: greater generalization of approach than avoidance in a generalized approach avoidance conflict. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  S. Asch Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. , 1956 .

[4]  J. O. Whittaker,et al.  A Repetition of Asch's “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment” , 1957 .

[5]  P. Wason On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task , 1960 .

[6]  A. D. Nicholl,et al.  Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision , 1963 .

[7]  P. Samuelson Risk and uncertainty: a fallacy of large numbers , 1963 .

[8]  P. Swingle,et al.  The structure of conflict , 1970 .

[9]  C. H. Coombs,et al.  Mathematical psychology : an elementary introduction , 1970 .

[10]  E. E. Jones,et al.  The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. , 1972 .

[11]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[12]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[13]  A. D. Jones,et al.  Obedience to Authority , 1974 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[15]  I. Janis,et al.  Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment , 1977 .

[16]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. , 1978 .

[17]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[18]  D. Winterfeldt Structuring decision problems for decision analysis , 1980 .

[19]  Lola L. Lopes Decision Making in the Short Run. , 1981 .

[20]  P. Schoemaker The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations , 1982 .

[21]  N. Sahlin,et al.  The role of second-order probabilities in decision making , 1983 .

[22]  J. Christensen-Szalanski Discount Functions and the Measurement of Patients' Values , 1984, Medical decision making.

[23]  Charles Vlek,et al.  WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD DECISION , 1984 .

[24]  H. Arkes,et al.  The Psychology of Sunk Cost , 1985 .

[25]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Accepting error to make less error. , 1986, Journal of personality assessment.

[26]  Lola L. Lopes,et al.  [Advances in Experimental Social Psychology] Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 20 Volume 20 || Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk , 1987 .

[27]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT: MEASURING LABILE VALUES , 1988 .

[28]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[29]  I. Levin,et al.  How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product , 1988 .

[30]  J. Baron,et al.  Outcome bias in decision evaluation. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  J. Kagan,et al.  Rational choice in an uncertain world , 1988 .

[32]  R. Dawes,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment , 2002 .

[33]  J. Elster,et al.  The Cement Of Society , 1989 .

[34]  Raanan Lipshitz,et al.  Either a medal or a corporal: the effects of success and failure on the evaluation of decision making and decision makers , 1989 .

[35]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Propensities and counterfactuals: The loser that almost won , 1990 .

[36]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Behavioral Law and Economics: Reluctance to Vaccinate: Omission Bias and Ambiguity , 1990 .

[37]  Gideon Keren,et al.  Additional tests of utility theory under unique and repeated conditions , 1991 .

[38]  J. Baron,et al.  Omission and commission in judgment and choice , 1991 .

[39]  Karen Zelan Cognition and Communication , 1991 .

[40]  G. Keren Calibration and probability judgements: Conceptual and methodological issues , 1991 .

[41]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  An Alternative Metaphor in the Study of Judgment and Choice: People as Politicians , 1991 .

[42]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[43]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Judgment by outcomes: When is it justified? , 1992 .

[44]  J. Baron,et al.  Status-quo and omission biases , 1992 .

[45]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation , 1992 .

[46]  Donald A. Redelmeier,et al.  On the Framing of Multiple Prospects , 1992 .

[47]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Reason-based choice , 1993, Cognition.

[48]  Steven K. Jones,et al.  Assessing the Accuracy of Decisions , 1993 .

[49]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[50]  R. Clemen,et al.  Beyond expected utility: rethinking behavioral decision research. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[51]  E. Weber From Subjective Probabilities to Decision Weights: The Effect of Asymmetric Loss Functions on the Evaluation of Uncertain Outcomes and Events , 1994 .

[52]  S. Epstein,et al.  Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[53]  Raanan Lipshitz Judgment by Outcomes: Why Is It Interesting? A Reply to Hershey and Baron: "Judgment by Outcomes: When Is It Justified?" , 1995 .

[54]  Sean A. Spence,et al.  Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[55]  N. Roese,et al.  What Might Have Been: The Social Psychology of Counterfactual Thinking , 1995 .

[56]  T. Gilovich,et al.  The experience of regret: what, when, and why. , 1995, Psychological review.

[57]  P. Slovic The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[58]  Judgment by Outcomes: When Is It Warranted? , 1995 .

[59]  Fischhoff,et al.  The Real World : What Good Is It ? , 1996 .

[60]  G. Keren Perspectives of Behavioral Decision Making: Some Critical Notes , 1996 .

[61]  S. Sloman The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[62]  G. Loewenstein Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior , 1996 .

[63]  Steven K. Jones,et al.  The Effect of Outcome Information on the Evaluation and Recall of Individuals' Own Decisions , 1997 .

[64]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Back to Bentham? Explorations of experience utility , 1997 .

[65]  E. Higgins Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as A Motivational Principle , 1998 .

[66]  J. Elster Emotions and Economic Theory , 1998 .

[67]  Edna Ullmann-Margalit,et al.  Second‐Order Decisions* , 1999, Ethics.

[68]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Accounting for the effects of accountability. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[69]  E. Higgins Making a good decision: value from fit. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[70]  Gideon Keren,et al.  Why isp = .90 better thanp = .70? Preference for definitive predictions by lay consumers of probability judgments , 2001 .

[71]  J. Haidt The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. , 2001, Psychological review.

[72]  K. Teigen,et al.  Why is p = .90 better than p = .70? Preference for definitive predictions by lay consumers of probability judgements. , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[73]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[74]  Chris Snijders,et al.  Do you trust? Whom do you trust? When do you trust? , 2001 .

[75]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hindsight ≠ foresight: the effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty* , 2003 .

[76]  H. Gaertner The quest for optimality : A positive heuristic of science ? , 2004 .