Skip to main content

Improving and Measuring the Effectiveness of Decision Analysis: Linking Decision Analysis and Behavioral Decision Research

  • Chapter
Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments

Part of the book series: Springer Optimization and Its Applications ((SOIA,volume 21))

Although behavioral research and decision analysis began with a close connection, that connection appears to have diminished over time. This chapter discusses how to re-establish the connection between the disciplines in two distinct ways. First, theoretical and empirical results in behavioral research in many cases provide a basis for crafting improved prescriptive decision analysis methods. Several productive applications of behavioral results to decision analysis are reviewed, and suggestions are made for additional areas in which behavioral results can be brought to bear on decision analysis methods in precise ways. Pursuing behaviorally based improvements in prescriptive techniques will go a long way toward re-establishing the link between the two fields.

The second way to reconnect behavioral research and decision analysis involves the development of new empirical methods for evaluating the effectiveness of prescriptive techniques. New techniques, including behaviorally based ones such as those proposed above, will undoubtedly be subjected to validation studies as part of the development process. However, validation studies typically focus on specific aspects of the decision-making process and do not answer a more fundamental question. Are the proposed methods effective in helping people achieve their objectives? More generally, if we use decision analysis techniques, will we do a better job of getting what we want over the long run than we would if we used some other decisionmaking method? In order to answer these questions, we must develop methods that will allow us to measure the effectiveness of decision-making methods. In our framework, we identify two types of effectiveness. We begin with the idea that individuals typically make choices based on their own preferences and often before all uncertainties are resolved. A decision-making method is said to be weakly effective if it leads to choices that can be shown to be preferred (in a way that we make precise) before consequences are experienced. In contrast, when the decision maker actually experiences his or her consequences, the question is whether decision analysis helps individuals do a better job of achieving their objectives in the long run. A decisionmaking method that does so is called strongly effective.We propose some methods for measuring effectiveness, discuss potential research paradigms, and suggest possible research projects. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the beneficial interplay between research on specific prescriptive methods and effectiveness studies.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as 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
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Allais. Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21:503–546, 1953.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Allais and J. Hagen. Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1979.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. R. M. Anderson and B. F. Hobbs. Using a Bayesian approach to quantify scale compatibility bias. Management Science, 48:1555–1568, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. F. G. Ashby, A. M. Eisen, and A. U. Turken. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106:529–550, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. R. F. Baumeister and T. F. Heatherton. Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7:1–15, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. H. Bleichrodt, J. L. Pinto, and P. P. Wakker. Making descriptive use of prospect theory to improve the prescriptive use of expected utility. Management Science, 47:1498–1514, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. L. G. Boiney. When efficient is insufficient: Fairness in decisions affecting a group. Management Science, 41:1523–1537, 1995.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. D. Bunn. Applied Decision Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1984.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. C. M. Clancy, R. D. Cebul, and S. V. Williams. Guiding individual decisions: A randomized, controlled trial of decision analysis. American Journal of Medicine, 84:283–288, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. R. Clemen, S. K. Jones, and R. L. Winkler. Aggregating forecasts: An empirical evaluation of some Bayesian methods. In D. Berry, K. M. Chaloner, and J. K. Geweke, editors, Bayesian Analysis in Statistics and Econometrics, pages 3–14. Wiley, New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. T. Clemen. Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis. Duxbury, Belmont, CA, second edition, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. T. Clemen and R. C. Kwit. The value of decision analysis at Eastman Kodak Company, 1990–1999. Interfaces, 31:74–92, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. T. Clemen and C. Ulu. Interior additivity and subjective probability assessment of continuous variables. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  14. P. Delquié. “Bimatching”: A new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Management Science, 43:640–658, 1997.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. A. Dijksterhuis, M. W. Bos, L. F. Nordgren, and R. B. van Baaren. On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311:1005–1007, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. G. W. Fischer. Utility models for multiple objective decisions: Do they accurately represent human preferences? Decision Sciences, 10:451–479, 1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. B. Fischhoff. Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, editors, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pages 422–444. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. C. Fishburn and R. K. Sarin. Fairness and social risk I: Unaggregated analyses. Management Science, 40:1174–1188, 1994.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. P. C. Fishburn and R. K. Sarin. Fairness and social risk II: Aggregated analyses. Management Science, 43:115–126, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. R. Folger. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:108–119, 1977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. C. R. Fox and R. T. Clemen. Subjective probability assessment in decision analysis: Partition dependence and bias toward the ignorance prior. Management Science, 51:1417–1432, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. C. R. Fox and Y. Rottenstreich. Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 14:195–200, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. C. R. Fox and A. Tversky. A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Science, 44:879–895, 1998.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. D. Frisch and R. T. Clemen. Beyond expected utility: Rethinking behavioral decision research. Psychological Bulletin, 116:46–54, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. D. G. Fryback and J. R. Thornbury. Informal use of decision theory to improve radiological patient management. Radiology, 129:385–388, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  26. G. Gigerenzer. How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond heuristics and biases. European Review of Social Psychology, 2:83–115, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. G. Gigerenzer, U. Hoffrage, and H. Kleinbölting. Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98:506–528, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, editors. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Gregory, S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic. Valuing environmental resources: A constructive approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7:177–197, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. J. Hershey, H. C. Kunreuther, and P. J. Schoemaker. Sources of bias in assessment of utility functions. Management Science, 28:936–954, 1982.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. S. C. Hora, N. G. Dodd, and J. A. Hora. The use of decomposition in probability assessments on continuous variables. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6:133–147, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. C. K. Hsee and Y. Rottenstreich. Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133:23–30, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. S. K. Jacobi and B. F. Hobbs. Quantifying and mitigating splitting biases in value trees. Unpublished manuscript, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  34. D. Kahneman. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93:1449–1475, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. D. Kahneman and S. Frederick. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, editors, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pages 49–81. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  36. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, editors. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47:263–291, 1979.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky. Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Keeney and D. von Winterfeldt. Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38:191–201, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. R. L. Keeney. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  41. S. Lichtenstein, B. Fischhoff, and L. D. Phillips. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky, editors, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pages 306–334. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  42. S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic. Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89:46–55, 1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. G. F. Loewenstein, C. K. Hsee, E. U. Weber, and N. Welch. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127:267–286, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. M. F. Luce, J. R. Bettman, and J. W. Payne. Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23:384–405, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. S. Makridakis, A. Andersen, R. Carbone, R. Fildes, M. Hibon, R. Lewandowski, J. Newton, E. Parzen, and R. Winkler. The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: Results of a forecasting competition. Journal of Forecasting, 1:111–153, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. S. Makridakis, C. Chatfield, M. Hibon, M. Lawrence, T. Mills, K. Ord, and L. Simmons. The M-2 competition: A real-time judgmentally based forecasting study. International Journal of Forecasting, 9:5–22, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. S. Makridakis and M. Hibon. The M3-competition. International Journal of Forecasting, 16:451–476, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. M. McCord and R. de Neufville. Lottery equivalents: Reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Management Science, 32:56–60, 1986.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. M. W. Merkhofer. Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences, and insights. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17:741–752, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  50. M. G. Morgan and M. Henrion. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  51. M. Muraven and R. F. Baumeister. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126:247–259, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. A. H. Murphy and R. L. Winkler. Scoring rules in probability assessment and evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 34:273–286, 1970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. L. D. Ordóñez, B. A. Mellers, S.-J. Chang, and J. Roberts. Are preference reversals reduced when made explicit? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8:265–277, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. J. W. Payne, J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  55. J. W. Payne, J. R. Bettman, and D. A. Schkade. Measuring constructed preferences: Towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19:243–270, 1999.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. J. Protheroe, T. Fahey, A. A. Montgomery, and T. J. Peters. The impact of patients’ preferences on the treatment of atrial fibrillation: Observational study of patient based decision analysis. British Medical Journal, 320:1380–1384, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. H. Raiffa. Decision Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Y. Rottenstreich and A. Tversky. Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 2:406–415, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. T. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  60. R. E. Schaefer and K. Borcherding. The assessment of subjective probability distributions: A training experiment. Acta Psychologica, 37:117–129, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. B. J. Schmeichel, K. D. Vohs, and R. F. Baumeister. Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85:33–46, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. K. E. See, C. R. Fox, and Y. Rottenstreich. Between ignorance and truth: Partition dependence and learning in judgment under uncertainty. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  63. S. Sloman. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119:3–22, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. P. Slovic. The construction of preferences. American Psychologist, 50:364–371, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. P. Slovic, M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. G. MacGregor. The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman, editors, Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pages 397–420. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  66. P. Slovic, D. Griffin, and A. Tversky. Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. Hogarth, editor, Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn, pages 5–27. University of Chicago Press, IL, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  67. C. S. Spetzler and C.-A. S. Staël Von Holstein. Probability encoding in decision analysis. Management Science, 22:340–352, 1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. C.-A. S. Staël Von Holstein. The effect of learning on the assessment of subjective probability distributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 6:304–315, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  69. C.-A. S. Staël Von Holstein. Two techniques for assessment of subjective probability distributions: An experimental study. Acta Psychologica, 35:478–494, 1971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211:453–458, 1981.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  71. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26:297–323, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. A. Tversky and D. J. Koehler. Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101:547–567, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. A. Tversky, S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95:371–84, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. A. Tversky, P. Slovic, and D. Kahneman. The causes of preference reversal. The American Economic Review, 80:204–217, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  75. D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  76. P. Wakker and D. Deneffe. Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science, 42:1131–1150, 1996.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  77. M. Weber, F. Eisenführ, and D. von Winterfeldt. The effects of splitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science, 34:431–445, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. G. Wu and R. Gonzalez. Nonlinear decision weights in choice under uncertainty. Management Science, 45:74–85, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Clemen, R.T. (2008). Improving and Measuring the Effectiveness of Decision Analysis: Linking Decision Analysis and Behavioral Decision Research. In: Kugler, T., Smith, J.C., Connolly, T., Son, YJ. (eds) Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments. Springer Optimization and Its Applications, vol 21. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77131-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics