Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Behavioral Decision Theory and Good Decision Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Behavioral Decision Theory

  • 3793 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aristotle (1971). Nikomakosu Rinrigaku [Trans. by S. Takada (Ed.), Nichomachean ethics]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brandstätter, E., Giggerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113, 409–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattin, P., & Wittink, D. R. (1989). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Journal of Marketing, 53, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, G. (1994). Pluralism & liberalism. Political Studies, 42, 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, G. (2002). Liberalism and value pluralism. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Japan

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmakar, U. S. (1978). Subjective weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kojima, S. (1959). Shohisha shinri no kenkyu. Nihon Seisansei Honbu [Consumer Psychology]. Japan Productivity Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Louviere, J. J. (1988). Analyzing decision making: Metric conjoint analysis. Newbury: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Prelec, D. (1998). The probability Weighting Function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shepard, R. N., Romney, A. K., & Nerlove, S. (Eds.). (1972). Multidimensional scaling (Vol. I). New York: Seminar.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Takemura, K. (1994). The contingent focus model of the framing effect. Japanese Psychological Review, 37(3), 270–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Tversky, A., & Fox, C. R. (1995). Weighting risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102, 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in the prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Wakker, P. (1995). Risk attitudes and decision weight. Econometrica, 63, 1255–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42, 1676–1690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Waseda University, 1-24-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 108-8345, Japan

    Professor Kazuhisa Takemura

Authors
  1. Professor Kazuhisa Takemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Japan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Takemura, K. (2014). Behavioral Decision Theory and Good Decision Making. In: Behavioral Decision Theory. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54580-4_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation