Advertisement

Designing for decision making

  • David H. JonassenEmail author
Development Article

Abstract

Decision making is the most common kind of problem solving. It is also an important component skill in other more ill-structured and complex kinds of problem solving, including policy problems and design problems. There are different kinds of decisions, including choices, acceptances, evaluations, and constructions. After describing the centrality and importance of decision making to problem solving and everyday cognition, this paper contrasts normative (rational) with naturalistic approaches to decision making. Normative approaches, such as decision matrices, SWOT, and force field analyses, scaffold rational decision-making approaches. Naturalistic approaches such as constructing stories, mental simulations, scenarios, and arguments, emphasize the meanings of decision options and the role of unconscious emotions in decision making. Recommendations about instructional designs to support both conceptions are followed by recommendations about assessing decisions and decision-making ability. These recommendations provide many researchable questions.

Keywords

Decision making Problem solving Instructional design 

References

  1. Anderson, J. R. (1993). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 3(3), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, J., & Brown, R. V. (1991). Toward improved instruction in decision making to adolescents: A conceptual framework and pilot program. In J. Baron & R. V. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision making to adolescents (pp. 95–122). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Beach, L. R., & Connelly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Brooks, D. (2011). The social animal: The hidden sources of love, character, and achievement. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, M. (1993). Three paradigms for viewing decision biases. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 36–50). Norwood, NJ: Abex.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, M. S., & Freeman, J. T. (1996). Thinking naturally about uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.Google Scholar
  8. Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Damasio, A. R. (2005). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(40), 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1982). Prediction, diagnosis, and causal thinking in forecasting. In V. T. Covello, J. L. Mumpower, P. J. M. Stallen, & V. R. R. Uppuliri (Eds.), Environmental impact assessment, technology assessment, and risk analysis (pp. 237–261). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Faude-Koivisto, T. S., Wuerz, D., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Implementation intentions: The mental representations of cognitive procedures in if-then planning. In K. D. Markman, W. M. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 69–85). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  13. Glasspool, D. W., & Fox, J. (2005). Knowledge, argument, and meta-cognition in routine decision making. In T. Betsch & S. Haberstroh (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 343–358). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hogart, R. M. (2005). Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytical and intuitive thought. In T. Betsch & S. Haberstoh (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 67–82). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huber, O. (1995). Complex problem solving as multistage decision-making. Complex problem solving as multistage decision-making. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 151–173). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as a design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.Google Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology: Research & Development, 58(4), 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jungermann, H. (2000). The two camps on rationality. In T. Connelly, H. R. Arkes, & K. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 575–591). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kahn, H. (1965). On escalation: Metaphor and scenarios. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  25. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kahneman, D. F., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the psychology of prediction. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 48–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a given time”. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Marston, M., & Mistree, F. (1997, October). A decision based foundation for systems design: A conceptual exposition. Orlando, FL: Decision-Based Workshop.Google Scholar
  31. Means, B., Salas, E., Crandall, B., & Jacobs, T. O. (1993). Training decision makers for the real world. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 306–326). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  32. Mishan, E. J., & Quah, E. (2007). Cost benefit analysis (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 521–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). In P. Wilkinson & J. Weaver (Eds.), The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  35. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Rettinger, D. A., & Hastie, R. (2001). Content effects on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 85(2), 336–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Safir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shanteau, J., Grier, M., Johnson, J., & Berner, E. (1991). Teaching decision-making skills to student nurses. In J. Baron & R. V. Brown (Eds.), Teaching decision making to adolescents (pp. 185–206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19–29.Google Scholar
  41. Szpunar, K. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2009). Episodic future thought: Remembering the past to imagine the future. In K. D. Markman, W. M. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 119–129). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  42. Thuring, M., & Jungermann, H. (1986). Constructing and running mental models for inferences about the future. In B. Brehmer, H. Jungermann, P. Lourens, & G. Sevon (Eds.), New directions in research on decision making (pp. 163–174). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Tverky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1980). Causal schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 49–72). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Tversky, A., & Kahnemann, D. (2000). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In D. Kahnemann & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values, and frames (pp. 209–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Wong, E. M., Galinsky, A. D., & Kray, L. J. (2009). The counterfactual mindset: A decade of research. In K. D. Markman, W. M. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 161–174). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  47. Yates, J. F. (2003). Decision management: How to assure better decisions in your company. San Francisco, CA: Joissey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Yates, J. F., & Tschirhart, M. D. (2006). Decision-making expertise. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. F. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 421–438). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Psychology and Learning TechnologiesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations