Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing for decision making

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1993). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 3(3), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Beach, L. R., & Connelly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. (2011). The social animal: The hidden sources of love, character, and achievement. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damasio, A. R. (2005). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(40), 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Kunreuther, H. (1995). Decision making under ignorance: Arguing with yourself. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10, 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as a design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kahn, H. (1965). On escalation: Metaphor and scenarios. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Klein, G. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “Field at a given time”. Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston, M., & Mistree, F. (1997, October). A decision based foundation for systems design: A conceptual exposition. Orlando, FL: Decision-Based Workshop.

  • 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 

  • Mishan, E. J., & Quah, E. (2007). Cost benefit analysis (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

  • Rettinger, D. A., & Hastie, R. (2001). Content effects on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 85(2), 336–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21(4), 546–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soelberg, P. O. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Yates, J. F. (2003). Decision management: How to assure better decisions in your company. San Francisco, CA: Joissey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology and Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, 221C Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    David H. Jonassen

Authors
  1. David H. Jonassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David H. Jonassen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonassen, D.H. Designing for decision making. Education Tech Research Dev 60, 341–359 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation