The Psychological Record

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 207–213 | Cite as

The Role of Personal Tendencies in the Selection of Decision-Making Strategies

  • Dan Zakay
Articles

Abstract

It was hypothesized that strategy selection in decision making is dependent both on a basic tendency toward using a specific strategy and a cost benefit analysis that favors the utilization of a strategy that yields the highest net gain. In the present study, the influence of a priori tendencies on the selection of compensatory or noncompensatory strategies was tested. Twenty female student nurses participated in a decision making experiment, and, as hypothesized, a significant relationship was found between tendencies and actual utilization of decision strategies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BEACH, L. R., & MITCHELL, T. R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 439–449.Google Scholar
  2. BEN ZUR, H., & BREZNITZ, S. J. (1981). The effects of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica 47, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CHRISTENSEN-SZALANSKI, J. J. J. (1978). Problem solving strategies: A selection mechanism, some implications, and some data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CRONBACH, L. J. (1965). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper amp; Row.Google Scholar
  5. EINHORN, H. G. (1970). The use of non-linear non-compensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. KREITLER, H., & KREITLER, S. (1981). Cognitive orientation: Expanding the scope of behavior prediction. In B. Maher & W. Maher (Eds.), Advances in experimental personality research, Vol. II. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. MCALLISTER, D. W., MITCHELL, T. R., & BEACH, L. R. (1979). The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: An empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability and reversibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 228–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. PAYNE, J. W. (1982). Contingent-decision-behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. PAYNE, J. W., BETTMAN, J. R., & JOHNSON, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 534–552.Google Scholar
  10. SVENSON, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 86–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. TODA, M. (1976). The decision process: A perspective. International Journal of General Systems, 3, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. TVERSKY, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ZAKAY, D. (1984a). A trip to Paris or a trip to Rome? Context effects and stochastic decision making. The Psychological Record, 34, 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ZAKAY, D. (1984b). The influence of perceived event’s controllability on its subjective occurrence probability. The Psychological Record, 34, 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ZAKAY, D., & WOLLER, S. (1984). Time pressure, training and decision effectiveness. Ergonomics, 27, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ZELENY, M. (1976). The attribute dynamic attitude model. Management Sciences, 23, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavior Analysis International 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Zakay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTel-Aviv UniversityRamat AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations