Citation

Mellers BA, Schwartz A, Cooke AD. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1998; 49: 447-477.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA. mellers.1@osu.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, Annual Reviews)

DOI

10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.447

PMID

9496629

Abstract

For many decades, research in judgment and decision making has examined behavioral violations of rational choice theory. In that framework, rationality is expressed as a single correct decision shared by experimenters and subjects that satisfies internal coherence within a set of preferences and beliefs. Outside of psychology, social scientists are now debating the need to modify rational choice theory with behavioral assumptions. Within psychology, researchers are debating assumptions about errors for many different definitions of rationality. Alternative frameworks are being proposed. These frameworks view decisions as more reasonable and adaptive that previously thought. For example, "rule following." Rule following, which occurs when a rule or norm is applied to a situation, often minimizes effort and provides satisfying solutions that are "good enough," though not necessarily the best. When rules are ambiguous, people look for reasons to guide their decisions. They may also let their emotions take charge. This chapter presents recent research on judgment and decision making from traditional and alternative frameworks.

Language: en