Skip to main content

Decision-Making

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible

Abstract

In this chapter, the way people consider possibilities in decision making are unpacked and explored. It begins by outlining the concept of rational choice – what a decision maker ought to choose. Specifically, it discusses how, for a given decision, a rational choice can (or cannot) be determined. Whether people often make rational choices, and what can be done to shift people toward making rational choices more often. The chapter also portrays decision making in a human light: explaining how defining a rational choice and the decision process are constrained by human biology and behavior. The steps required to make a decision are delineated, and at each step, it is briefly discussed when and how people can diverge from what they ought to be doing or choosing. The chapter closes by discussing how people evaluate decisions after they have made them and the factors that affect the evaluation.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

  • Alchian, A. (1968). Cost. In International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 404–415). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(85)90049-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, D., Vernasca, G., Fischer, S., & Dornbush, R. (2014). Economics (11th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision. (2020). In Merriam-Webster.com. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decision

  • Domurat, A., Kowalczuk, O., Idzikowska, K., Borzymowska, Z., & Nowak-Przygodzka, M. (2015). Bayesian probability estimates are not necessary to make choices satisfying Bayes’ rule in elementary situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01194.

  • Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. (pp. xi, 179). London: Psychology/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Fr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.1.3.288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B. (2012). Judgment and decision making. New York: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H. (2007). The laws of emotion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardman, D. (2009). Judgment and decision making. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 653–683. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Inference with mental models.  In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 134–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 623–655. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, O., Hegarty, P., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Hindsight 40 years on: An interview with Baruch Fischhoff. Memory Studies, 10(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698017701606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 316–338). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752937.ch16.

  • Lenstra, J. K., & Kan, A. H. G. R. (1975). Some simple applications of the travelling salesman problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 26(4), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1975.151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey (pp. xix, 509). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayor, M. (Ed.). (2011). Longman dictionary of contemporary English: DCE new edition for advanced learners (5 ed., 5. printing). London, UK: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, E. A., Białek, M., Fugelsang, J. A., Koehler, D. J., & Friedman, O. (2019). Wronging past rights: The sunk cost bias distorts moral judgment. Judgment and Decision making, 14(6), 721–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, J., Tyszka, T., & Pfeifer, K. (2017). Are people interested in probabilities of natural disasters?: Are people interested in probabilities of natural disasters? Risk Analysis, 37(5), 1005–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niszczota, P., & Białek, M. (2020). Women oppose sin stocks more than men do. Finance Research Letters, 101803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101803.

  • Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redelmeier, D. A., & Shafir, E. (2020). Pitfalls of judgment during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Public Health, 5(6), e306–e308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30096-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias & ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision, 3(4), 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royzman, E. B., & Baron, J. (2002). The preference for indirect harm. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1959). Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review, 49(3), 253–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spranca, M., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(1), 76–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(91)90011-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(4), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2020). Why humans are cognitive misers and what it means for the great rationality debate. In R. Viale (Ed.), Routledge handbook of bounded rationality (1st ed., pp. 196–206). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies, and nations (1st ed). New York: Doubleday & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turpin, M. H., Meyers, E. A., Fugelsang, J. A., Friedman, O., & Białek, M. (2019). Sunk cost bias and withdrawal aversion. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(3), 57–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1563653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. (pp. xviii, 625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldmann, M. R., Wiegmann, A., & Nagel, J. (2017). Causal models mediate moral inferences. In Moral inferences (pp. 37–55). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, D., Butcherine, E., & Savulescu, J. (2019). Withdrawal aversion and the equivalence test. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(3), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1574465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00355.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Białek, M., Domurat, A., Meyers, E.A. (2022). Decision-Making. In: Glăveanu, V.P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_157

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics