How we make complex decisions, a review

Gradethesis
13May2015

Author

AlbetsRamonet,Isaac
Direction

RibaiLloret,Dolors

Abstract
Theaimoftheactualreviewistocreateabaseforthestudyofthedecisorsbehaviorduringdecisionmakingfromapsychologicalpointof
view.Asstartingpoint,fromalackofcientificissues,booksandliteratureaboutthesubjectthatdointegratethecurrentandpastknowledge
ofthepsychologicalvariablesinawhole.Forthispurposeinmindthispaperhadbeenwrotewithagreatamountofknowledgeofhow,when
andwhichvariablesplayarole.Thepointsineverycomplexdecisionwemakearelistedandexploredineachheadofsection.Ineachsection
thereisacollectionofwhatisregardedasthemostrelevantdatafound.Providingageneralvisionwiththeobjectivetobeusedasareference
forfutherresearch.

Resumen
Elpropsitodelaactualrevisineseldecrearunabaseparaelestudiopsicolgicoactualyfuturodelaconductadeldecisorenelprocesode
tomadedecisiones.Partiendodelafaltadearticulos,librosyliteraturavariadaenlamateriaqueintegrenelconocimientodelasvariables
psicolgicashastalafecha.Conestametaenmentesehaescritoestearticulocongranpartedelconocimientovigenteparaentenderque
variablesentranenjuego,cmoycuando.Enlosenunciadosdeseccinestnlistadoslosdiferentesfactoresdecadadecisincompleja.En
cadaseccinhayunconjuntodedatosdeloquesehaconsideradolomsimportantedentrodelosestudios.Aportandounavisingeneralcon
elobjetivodepoderserusadocomoreferenciaenfuturosestudios.

1. Introduction

emotions,reasoning(including
metacognitiveskills),memory,the

Agreatamountofbooksandcientific

integrationofallkindsofheuristic

essaysaboutdecisionmakingstillget

processes,etc.Actually,weonlythink

stifftoaprobabilisticbaseapproach.

inprobabilitywhenwegettooptions

Thereasonforthatdominanceisthe

especificallywhenitnarrowsdownto

leaderthinkingofrationalityover

takeinconsiderationonechoiceamong

anythingelse.Nowadays,newtheories

othersorinthemomentwehaveto

putincheckmatetheuseofprobability

makethechoicesowecanpredicttheir

asauniquepredictorofourbehavior;

futurevalue.

weknowtherearemorepsychological
variablesplayingitsrole.Owingtothis

Beingawareofhowtheprocessitself

mishap,itisdifficulttoapplyallthis

andyouinrelationtotheprocessare

knowledgetodecisionmakingdueto

workingandwhichstagesanddeseases

humanscannotthinkinaprobabilistic

youcanface.Deepunderstandingof

baseasmachinescan;wemake

actualknowledgeandgivingsomehints

decisionsbasedonperception,

musthelp.Musthelptobuildwhatis

calledaGestaltenandsurewillhelp
peopletoidentifyingtheirown

Aimofthereview

weakneses,makingthedecisionmaker

Thewholereviewhasfolloweda

towardanobjectivefixingtask.

bibliographicresearchmethodology
withtheaimofcreatingawholereview

Haveyoubeentaughttomakechoices?

topresentcurrentknowledgeofthe

Maybeyouwerenot.Asseenin

decisionmakingprocess,new

Gonzalez(2005)theabilitytomake

approachesandframeworks,specially

smartchoicesisafundamentallifeskill

focusingonjointscrossstudy/frame

(S. Hammond, L. Keeney, & Raiffa,

everyparticularapproachhavein

1999).Itisfundamentalbutnottaught.

commonwithothers.Andtoshowup

Ifwedonottrainourselveswecannot

somefactsindecisionmakinginan

becomebetterespecifically,youendup

uncertaintyenvironmentandmakea

beinggloballypressured(Pfister &

currentupdatethatcanbeusedfor

Bhm, 2008)bytimeorbytime

futherresearchtoa)makeabigpicture

pressurethatcanrangefromsecondsto

inordertoeasehypotesismakingphase

years.Noonehavebeenteachedinhow

andb)toinciteresearcherstodistortthe

tomakedecisionsorevaluatechoices

resultsandcreateabetterone.

andbehappywiththeoptionthey
take,atleastnotwhenitoughttobe

Forthetimebeing,thesolepurposeof

taught.Oneclearexampleisthe

thereviewistopresentthisprocedure

phenomenaofbuyersregretnesswhich

bydeconstructingtoitsthiniestpartto

tendstoappearinanuncertainty

understantabitbetterhowthewhole

environmentwithmorethanone

acts.

possiblechoice(Russo & H.
Schoemaker, 2002),(whichisthe
criteriaforconsideringadecision
makingasadilema)meaningregretness
ofyourpreferedoutcomeinfrontofthe
onenotchoosen.

2. Dissectionof
decision
Therearealotofquestionsabout
makingdecisionsunresolvedoutthere.
Actually,someoftheinitialquestions

tostartthisresearchwhere:doweknow

secondsandcanlastuptosomeminutes

howtomakeadecision?Whatis

butasageneralruleitwilltakealittle

involved?And,whatcanimprovethe

timeandcognitiveeffort.Theyare

process?Inordertogivearesponseto

simple;theydonotconsumesomany

allthosequestionsitisimportantto

timeorcognitiveeffortandordinarily

knowfirstwhatisthemeaningof

donotcarrybigpsychologicalissues

decisionmaking(fromnowonDM),

whengoingthroughthem.Important

howmanypartsgathertogetherand

decisionyouwillfacearemostcomplex

howtheyinteractwitheachotherto

andwithnoeasyorobvioussolution(S.

finallygetanoutput.

Hammondetal.,1999).Theconcepts
discussedinthispaperarefocusedin

2.1.

Process

complexdecisionsjustbecausesimple

Itsimportanttomakeitclear;DMisa

decisionsareneithertime

process.So,asaprocessithavea

consumingnoremotionaldemandant

startingpointorinput,whichisthe

andarenotassociatedwithanykindof

situationofhavingtochoosebetween

problemgenerationordifficulty.And

twoormoreoptions(akalabeled

whenitturnsouttoandincreasesof

problem)andanendingpointoroutput,

importance,difficultytoresolve,time

whichisthefinaldecisionandchoosed

demandant(throughtloops),emotional

choiceexecution.

demandantorindecisionitturnstobea
complexdecision.

Therearetwotypesofdecisionswecan
make:simpledecisionsorcomplex

Wehavetoclarifythatthedecision

decisions.Therearedifferentgradesof

processhasthreemainareas.Whenwe

difficultyineachoneasdifferentedges

havetomakeadecisionwecanchoose

andmishaps.Simpledecisionsare

betweentwoormoreoptions.Asa

basedonwhichoutcomeisbestthebest

startingdecisionwecreateaconceptof

oneoryoupredictisthebestoneina

everychoiceandframeourselvesinto

givencircumstances(Chang, 2014)bya
givenstate.Wedotakesimple
decisionsthroughalllifebillionsand
billionsoftimes.Mostaresolvedin

theproblems,gatheringallinformation
aboutanypossiblechoiceoutcome.
Thisphasecantakeasmuchtimeas
youcanimaginerangingfromthe

superiorlimitofdisponibletimetothe

Lastbutnotleast,weimmerse

lowestone.

ourselvestotheoutputasapartofthe
processitself.Whenwethinkaboutthe

Thenwemakethechoice,whichisan

metacognitionintheprocessandthe

awhile,timecostapproximatelyisin

judgetheresultingoutput,thenwecan

between15secondsandemotional

doitintwoways.Wecanjudgethe

costtendstobedisproportional.Its

outcomebytheprocessitself,whichis

suposedwedoitbyapplyingand

themostdesiredgoaltoaimforbecause

processingalltheinformation,prosand

agoodprocessissomethingyoucan

cons,emotionalreasons,andsomuch

exerciseyourcontrolwithwhereas

moreandthenwecameupinsortofa

judgingthewholeprocessbythe

certainwaydriventoagiven

outcomeandisbyfarthemostcommon

choice.Evendonttakinganyactionon

waytodoit.Sadly,judgindbythe

adecisionisadecisionitselfassaidby

outcomecarriesmoreproblemsthatcan

WilliamJames,andthispostposalalso

solvebecausewillendupafectingyour

takestime,timefordecidingnotto

judgmentcapacityandwhatsworse

decide(ignorethedecision)andtime

conductingyourdecisionsthrough

forcontinuingweightingchoicesover

Theoutcomeyieldinaprobability

andoveragain.

gamewhichplayersarethedecision
takedandtheactionsthatfollowthat

Makingthechoiceimpliestheendofa

decision,thefactorsandvariablesunder

moreconceptualimaginativephaseto

yourcontrolandthefactorsand

givewaytoamoreactionalscripted

variablesoutofyourcontrol.(Russo &

phasethatwillturnallthose

H. Schoemaker, 2002)Itseasytoget

especulativeeffortintosomethingreal.

caughtintrapsthatconsistinevaluate

Youcanviewitasdesigningyour

theprocessbyitsoutcomebutthatsa

possibleperformancesfirstandthen

bigmistake.

executingthebestoneforyouona
givenmoment/timebytherulesand

Allthosephaseshavetransversal

actionsyouscriptedinthedesign.

factorsthatmakeitevenmorecomplex.
Thefirstoneistime,whichplaysa
gameineachstepandcanplayhigher

bymakingthedecisionprocess

TheDMprocesshasbeenexplained

dynamic,whichmeanstakingrealtime

classicallybytwomaintheories;the

decisions.Soyouhaveacontinuumof

utilitytheoryandtheprospecttheory.

timestartingfromawiderframetoa

Whilethefirstoneisbasedonthe

realtimeframe.Timeisalsoinvolved

economicfieldwhileframingevery

ineachphasebytimetakedperact,

decisionintermsofwinsandlosesand

framingeachphaseasatimepill.The

asprobabilities,thesecondonetakesin

secondoneisthekindofcontextthat

accountaswellagreatamountof

surroundssomeoneandthekindof

psycologicalvariablesandnowadaysis

contextthatsurroundtheprocess

themostwidelyspreadtheoryduetoits

(whichisthemicrocontext)thatmight

explanatorypower.

notbethesame.Yoursocial&
economiccontextactasmacrocontext.

Atoosimplisticbutyetvalidapproach

Contextualrequirementsprimarily

todefinetheutilitytheorybythesolely

determinewhichfunctiondominates:

purposeofcontextualizingcanbethis

lackofinformation,timepressure,

one:utilitytheoryiscentredon

relevanceambiguity,orneedofsocial

normativetheoriesformakingoptimal

coordination.(Pfister & Bhm, 2008)

choice.Whichmeansthattheutilitiesof
outcomesareweightedbytheir

Lastoneisemotion,whichisawhole

probabilitiesandbyweightingyouend

heapofemotionsthatusuallyworkas

upwiththeperfectsolution.So,

informationprovider(Pfister & Bhm,

centredonpredictingbutbeing

2008)bytheirvalenceina

completlyrational/logic.Well,while

unidimensionalscaleofpleasure

thisistrueandabsolutlyusefulwhen

displeasure.Affectaswellplaysarole

wefacedecisionwithsomekindof

assistingdecisionmakerstointegrate

certaintyitfailstoexplainirrational

dispareinformationtomakesenseout

choiceswhenfacinguncertainty.The

ofacomplexworld(Peters, Vstfjll,

prospecttheorycameuptoexplainthe

Grling, & Slovic, 2006).

gapthatexistbetweenwhatisexpected
bytheutilitytheoryandwhatactually

2.2.

Principal theories

happenswhenyoufacethatdecision.
Helpingtoconstruehowtoexplain

commonattitudestowardriskorchance

decisionmakerlookattheissue,the

thatcannotbecapturedbywhatwillbe

secondoneisgatheringintelligence,

expectedbyframingintheutility

wherethedecisionmakerseekfor

model.

knowablefactsandoptionstoproduce
reasonableevaluationsof

Thunholm(2004)referstoactual

unknowables.Nextstepiscomingto

reasearchas:ModernDMresearchis

conclusions,thenameisenough

moreconcernedwithhowthedecision

descriptivebuttheyembaracea

problemandtheDMsituationaffects

systematicapproachandfinallylearning

thedecisionsprocess.

fromexperience,refiningthedecision
orimplementationplan.Antoher

Aspostuledprospecttheory

schemaissubdividedinpreparations,

distinguishesbetweenanearlyphaseof

wherethesubjecttriestounderstandthe

editing,whereyouwillsimplifyyour

problem,production,wheresolutions

options,andasubsequentphaseof

mustbegeneratedtoaimforagoal

evaluation,whereprospectsare

(hereweplaywithheuristics)and

evaluatedandtheprospectofhighest

evaluationoftheresolution,wherethe

valueischoosen(Kahneman &

possiblechoicesareevaluatedbya

Tversky, 1979).

criteriachecklistofwhattodo(G.
Len, 2000).Yetanotherschemaisthe

2.3.

DM frameworks

Fromthepostulationofthistheoryunitl
todayawiderangeofschemashadbeen
createdandvariesfromauthortoauthor
andfromnicheofknowledgetoniche
ofknowledge.BelowIhadtranscripted
theonesIdistinguishasmoreuseful.
Oneinterestingschemaistheone
presentedby(Russo & H. Schoemaker,
2002)whichconsistoffourparts:the
firstoneisframing,whereyou
determinetheviewpointfromwhichthe

PrOACTwhostandsforProblem,
Objectives.Alternatives,Consequences
andTradeoffsdevelopedby(S.
Hammond,etal.,1999)whichevery
phaseisverydescriptivebyitsname.
PrOACTisaremainderasauthors
believethatthebestwaytofaceany
problemstendstobeaproactive
approach,youmusttakethedecision
anddonotwaitsomuch.Ifyouwait,
thenitresolvesitselfunprecisely.

Thereexistmanymoreschemasout

wayinaspecificdecisioncontext.

therebuttheylayonthesameactions,

TheyconcludethatDMstylesare

whichresultintheactionof

independentbutnotmutuallyexclusive

framing/facing/codifyingan

andthatpeopleseemtousea

autoconceptofagivenproblem,

combinationofdecisionmakingstyles

generatinginformationandtakingthe

inmakingimportantdecisions.

decision.Thereareauthorsthatinclude

Thunholm(2004)foundthatitcouldnot

aswellthepostdecisionresultswhile

beviewedasahabitbecauseitinvolves

othersdonot.Whenitcomesto

generalinformationprocessing.

improving,itcanbeinterestingtopick

Becauseifitwhereanhabitand

realresultsasacomparisonwith

decisiondependantyouwillnothaveto

expectedresults(fromfirststages)

makefurtherprocessinginordertoface

underDMprocess.Otherwiseitisnot

it.ThepurposeddefinitionDMstyleis

asusefulwhenyoujudgeaprocess

aresponsepatternexhibitedbyan

basedontheoutcome.

individualinaDMsituation.This
responsepatternisdeterminedbythe

2.4.

DM style

DMsituation,theDMtaskandbythe

Whenfacingadecisionyourapproach

individualdecisionmaker.Individual

totheproblemcantendtobeoneor

differencesbetweendecisionmakers

another,configuredbyhowyoufacethe

includedifferencesinhabitsbutalso

decision,timeyouspendonthe

differencesinbasiccognitiveabilities

decision,etc.Whenthispatternitis

suchasinformationprocessing,self

repeatedlyconsistentovertime

evaluationandselfregulation,which

(meaningovermultipledecision)thisis

haveaconsistentimpactonthe

calledastyle.

responsepatternacrossdifferentDM

ScottandBurce(1995)asintentto

tasksandsituations(Thunholm, 2004)

integrateallearlierworkdefineDM

impliesanewandmorecomplete

styleasthelearnedhabitualresponse

integrationalvisionwhichcanhelp

patternexhibitedbyanindividualwhen

whenappliedtodesignDMsupport

confrontedwithadecisionsituation.It

systems.

isnotapersonalitytrait,butahabit
basedpropensitytoreactinacertain

ThesearethefiveDMstyles,whichhad

Nowadaysthereislittleconsensuson

beenproven,andbastlydescrivedby

whatisactuallymeantbyemotionor

Thunholm(2004).Firstone,the

affect.

rationalstylecharacterizedby

Ontheonehand,mostresearchers

comprehensivesearchforinformation,

adheretowhatwecalltheinfluenceon

inventoryofalternativesandlogical

metaphor.Emotionsoraffect,or

evaluationofalternatives.Second,an

feelingsareprotrayedasexternal

intuitivestylecharacterizedbyattention

forcesinfluencinganotherwisenon

todetailsintheflowofinformation

emotionalprocess.Itisassumedthathe

ratherthansystematicsearchforand

domainofemotionisqualitatively

processingofinformationanda

differentandfunctionallyseparatefrom

tendencytorelyonpremonitionsand

thedomainofcognition.Emotionsmay

feelings.Third,adependantstyle

haveaninfluenceonDM,butDMper

characterizedbysearchingadviceand

semightaswellproceedwithout

guidancefromothersbeforemaking

emotions.TraditionalapproachtoDM

importantdecisions.Fourth,an

alsoreflectedincurrentdualsystem

avoidantstylecharacterizedbyattempts

theories.Ontheotherhand,few

toavoiddecisionmakingwhenever

researchersbelievethatemotion(s)

possible.Finally,aspontaneousstyle

shouldnotbeconstruedasa

characterizedbyafeelingofimmediacy

homogeneouscategorythatthepositive

andadesiretocomethroughtheDM

negativevalancedimensionisnotthe

processasquicklyaspossibleandcan

mostimportantaspectofemotionsin

beseenasakindofhighspeedintuitive

DM,andthatemotionsdonotimply

style,perhapsusedindecision

irrationality.Theclassofemotional

situationswithtimepressure.

phenomenadoesnotforman
homogeneouscategory,butbreaks

2.5.

Emotion

Thereisamajorcomponentthathad
beenusuallyshelvedbutitmustbe
takeninconsiderationsinceitactsas
timeonthewholeprocess.

downintoqualitativelydifferent
categories,manyemotionsarenot
unambiguouslymappedontoasimple
positivenegativevalencedimension,
andthatemotionalmechanismsare
ubiquitousinDManddonotconstitute

anexternalirrationalforcewhich

viatheaffectasinformation

interruptsanallegedlynonemotional

mechanism.Actingasgoodversusbad

rationalprocess.(Pfister & Bhm, 2008)

informationtoguidechoices.Second,
asaspotlight,focusingthedecision

Affectcanactasinformationatthe

makersattentiononcertainkindsof

momentofjudgementorchoiceaswe

newinformation.Third,affectoperates

askquestionslikeHowdoIfeelabout

asamotivator,influencingapproach

this?(Schwarz&Clore,2003)which

avoidancetendenciesaswellasefforts

returnsafeelingthatmustbeinterpreted

toprocessinformation.Finally,serveas

intermsofpositiveornegativeina

acommoncurrencyinjudgmentsand

simplifiedvalencescale.Petersetal.

decisionsprovidingacommoncurrency

(2006)showcasedthataffectservesasa

forexperiences.

commoncurrencyallowingusto
comparethevaluesofverydifferent

AccordingtoPfister&Bhm(2008)

decisionoptionsorinformationlinked

emotionsarepartofvirtuallyany

toneuralresponsestranslatingmore

decisionmakingprocess.The

complexthoughtsintosimplieraffective

informationfunctionprovides

evaluationsintegratinggoodandbad

evaluativeinformation,whichfeedsinto

feelingsasinformationintojudgements

preferenceconstruction.Informabout

bythedecisionmaker.Affectas

thedegreeof(un)pleasantnessof

spotlight;first,thetypeofaffective

actionsandconsequences.Thespeed

feelingsfocusesthedecisionmakeron

functionenablesrapidchoiceandaction

newinformationmakingknowledge

undertimepressure.Affectprograms

moreaccessible.Thenthenew

forfearanddisgusttriggerinmediate

informationisusedtoguidethe

avoidanceresponses.Therelevance

judgmentordecision

functionfocusesattentiononparticular
aspectsthatareofpotentialrelevance

Affectcanbedefinedasexperienced

foradecisionmaker.Thecommitment

feelingsaboutastimulus,eitherintegral

functionenablessocialcoordinationby

orincidental.Fourrolesareidentifiedby

commitingpeopletosticktodecisions,

Pfister&Bhm(2008):first,affect

evenagainstshorttermselfinterest.All

playsaroleasinformation,especially

thesemechanismsarehighlystimulus

Weuseaffectivenessfellingsas

specific.

assistententswhenweintegratevery
dispairinformationwithloworno

Wheneverseveralemotionalfunctions

relationatall.Emotionalsoispresentas

generateantagonisticpreferences,an

astatethroughtalltheprocess,soyour

intensestateofambivalenceoccurs.In

stateincidesineachphase.State

relationwithsystemstheory,the

includesyourmood,theunderlying

activationofsystem1makespeople

emotions,generalfeelingsofyourbody

oftenuseinmediateandholistic

andeverything,whichisemotionally

affectiveresponsesasasubstituteof

related.Thisemotionstateaffectson

deliberatereasoning.

howthedecisionmakerapproach,feel

Pfister&Bhm(2008)foundthat

andthink(asaffectingcognitive

ambivalenceunderstoodasantagonistic

processing).

preferenceduetodisparemotionsmight
beconsideredasanimportantcausethat

2.6.

Time

makesdecisiondenotingaconflictthat

Thereissomethingelsethatis

ariseswhendifferentemotional

transversaltothewholeprocess,time.

mechanismsexertincompatible

Buttimeismorecomplex,yetwecan

influencesonbehavior.

distinguishbetweenintime,whichis,
timeexpendedineachphase,thenout
timewhichishowmuchtimewespend
inthewholeprocess.Butastimewe
canconceivetimeobjectivelyand
subjectivelyresultingin4dimensions
oftime.
ResultsofonestudybyKlalpproth
(2008)revealthatthedurationof
optionsplayedonlyanegligiblerolein
DM.Durationmustbetakeninto
accountwhenchoiceshavetobemade
betweenaversivestimuli,whendecision

makerspayattentiontothedurationsof

gatheredduringtheDMprocessandan

theoptions,whendurationsarecertain

internaltimingmechanismthattriggers

ratherthanuncertain,whendurations

theresponse.Klapproth(2008)found

areexperiencedratherthanimagined

beneficialeffectsoftimepressureon

andwhenpeoplechoosebetween

DMwereusuallyexplainedeitherby

optionsratherthanevaluatingthem.

theapplicationofsimplifiedstrategies
orbyfasterstimulusprocessing.

Modelsthatassumethatthevalueof
futureeventsisdiscountedhave
explainedpreferringoutcomesthat

2.7.

Personality

occurnow,ascomparedwithoutcomes
thatwilloccurinthefuture.

IneveryDMprocessexistindividual

Psychologicalmotivesthatcould

differencevariables,whichleadsome

accountfordelaydiscountingare,

peopletoconsistentlyachievebetter

amongothers,visceralinfluences,

decisionoutcomesthanothers.DM

uncertaintyaboutfutureoutcomes,and

stylespredictcompetentDMin

impulsivity.However,themyopiafor

everydaylife.Then,personalityasan

thefuturemayalsobeaproductofthe

individualdifferenceshouldtakepartin

waythefutureismentallyrepresented.

thegame.Indeeditdoes;ithadbeen

AgreeingwithKlapproth(2008),

foundthatitisinfluentialinthecontext

representingfutureeventsmore

ofDM.

abstractlythantemporallynearerevents

Bigfivetraitsandparticularly

mightlowerthevalueoffutureevents.

conscientiousnessandemotional
stability,areassociatedwith

TheeffectoftimepressureonDMis

performanceatmanydifferenttypesof

ambivalent,leadingtobothnegative

work.Impulsivenessandanxietypredict

andpositiveconsequences,depending

messageeffectivenessinagoalframing

onhowmanycognitiveresourcesare

taskthatpersonalityisassociatedwith

stillavailableformakinggood

riskychoicesinsocialethical,gambling

decisions.Theinstantatwhicha

andrecreationalrisktakingandthat

decisionisfinallymadeisdetermined

dispositionalanxietyisassociatedwith

byboththeamountofinformation

riskavoidantDM.Thereisalso

evidencethatneuroticismisassociated

negativeprospects.Inthepositive

withpoorDM.

domain,thecertaintyeffectcontributes
toariskaversionpreferenceforasure

Personalityhasasubstantialinfluence

gainoveralargergainthatismerely

onDMcompetenceithadbeenfound

probable.Inthenegativedomain,the

notedpositiveassociationsbetween

sameeffectleadstoariskseeking

theirrationalthinkingstyleand

preferenceforalossthatismerely

conscientiousness,openessand

probableoverasmallerlossthatis

emotionalstability.Theresultsindicate

certain.Thesamepsychological

thatpersonalityvariablesexplaina

principletheoverweightingof

significantandsubstantialamountof

certaintyfavorsriskaversioninthe

varianceinDMcompetenceoverand

domainofgainsandriskseekinginthe

abovecognitiveandDMstylevariables

domainoflosses.Reflectioneffect

(Dewberry, Juanchich, & Narendran,

eliminatesaversionforuncertaintyor

2013).Theseresultscanmakeus

variabilityasanexplanationofthe

rethinkwhichcompetencessliceis

certaintyeffect.

predictedjustbyDMstyleandwhich
pieceispredictedbypersonalitytraits.

Anothereffectdescribedintheresearch
byKahneman & Tversky(1979),was
isolationeffect.Isolationeffecttakes

2.8.

Phenomenon

placewheninordertosimplifythe

Throughinvestigationscientistshad

choicebewteenalternatives,people

identifiedeffectsthataffectDMwhen

oftendisregardcomponentsthatthe

takingplacewhenyoufacedecisions

alternativesshare,andfocusonthe

underuncertainty.

componentsthatdistinguisthem.This
approachtochoiceproblemsmay

Thereflectioneffect,descrivedfirstby

produceinconsistentpreferences;

Kahneman & Tversky(1979),implies

becauseapairofprospectscanbe

thatriskaversioninthepositivedomain

decomposedintocommonand

isaccompaniedbyriskseekinginthe

distinctivecomponentsinmorethan

negativedomain;thereisprevalenceof

oneway,anddifferentdecomposition

riskseekinginchoicesbetween

sometimesleadtodifferentpreferences.

willappreaciatetheopportunityto
Petersetal.(2006)foundthatthe

repairit(moodrepair).Inboth

intensityofafeelingassociatedwithan

situations,peoplemaychoose

outcomedependsonwhetherthe

alternativesthattheybelievewillinduce

outcomeiscertainoruncertain.

apositivemood.

Uncertaintyreducestheintensityofa
positiveandnegativefeeling,associated
withwinningandlosingaprize,

Itisimportanttodistinguish

respectively.Affectsrolewillbeless

overweightingwhichreferstoa

prominentinuncertainversuscertain

propertyofdecisionweights,fromthe

decisionsbecausetheaffectitselfis

overestimationthatiscommonlyfound

attenuated.

intheassessmentoftheprobabilityof
rareevents.Kahneman & Tversky
said:Inmanyreallifesituations,

Ourperceptualapparatusisattunedto

overestimationandoverweightingmay

theevaluationofchangesordifferences

bothoperatetoincreasetheimpactof

ratherthantotheevaluationofabsolute

rareevents(1979,p.281).Because

magnitudes,thishadbeencalledthe

peoplearelimitedintheirabilityto

valuefunction.(Kahneman & Tversky,

comprehendandevaluateextreme

1979)

probabilities,highlyunlikelyeventsare
eitherignoredoroverweighted,andthe

Distancingfromallcommonresearch

differencebetweenhighprobabilityand

Petersetal.(2006)highlightedthose

certaintyiseitherneglectedor

thoughtsaboutmood,regardlessofits

exaggerated.

valence,increaseschoiceofalternatives
thatpromoteagoodmood,evenifthose

Pleasurewithachosenoutcome,but

optionswouldhavebeenrejected

notarandomlyassigned,decreasesover

otherwise.Peoplewhothinkabouttheir

time(Petersetal.,2006,p.82).

goodmoodwillwanttoprotectitby
avoidingpotentiallythreatening

Affecttowardschosenandforegone

experiencies(moodmaintenance),

optionsmaybecomerelativelymore

whereasthosewhofocusonabadmood

negativeandpositive,respectively,over

associatedwithworselifeoutcomes,

time(Petersetal.,2006,p.83).

whiletheabilityfollowsnormative
rulesareassociatedwithbetterones.

Theintensityofexperiencedaffectis

TeachingbothnormativeDMskillsand

sensitivetohowthechoiceispresented

theimportanceofsatisficingmighthelp

orconstrued(Petersetal.,2006,p.83).

peopletoachievebetteroutcomes(M.
Parker, Bruine de Bruin, & Fischhoff,

Oneinterestingphenomenonistheone

2007).

thatappearswhenwemakeadicotomic
approachtoweightingoptionstochoose

Whenfacingriskychoicesfailureto

basedontheoutcome.Wedistinguish

adapttolossesortoattainanexpected

betweensatisficingthatmeans:

gaininducesriskseeking.Theexplicit

choosingandalternativethatisgood

formulationofdecisionproblemsin

enoughforyouandmaximizing

termsoffinalassetsisthemost

whichmeansselectingtheoptionwith

effectiveprocedureforeliminatingrisk

highestexpectedutility.

seekinginthedomainoflosses.

Ithadbeenfoundthatindividualswho

(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979)

reportastrongertendencytomaximize
(foundgreateramountinmen)arealso

Foreignlanguageeffecthappenswhen

morelikelytoreportother

usingforeignlanguageandappearsa

maladaptativeDMstyles,suchasless

reductioninlossaversion,promotionin

beahvioralcoping,greaterdependence

consistentchoicebehavioranda

onothers,moreavoidingofDM,and

reductionofambiguityaversion.Mainly

greaterexperienceofregret.Past

fromanattenuationoftheemotional

researchhasfoundthatrationalDM

componentelicitedbytheforeing

scoresarepositivelycorrelatedwith

language,reducingsuchemotionality

competenceandgoodoutcomes,while

wouldreducetheinvolvementofthe

strongerdesiretomaximizeis

moreintuitive,fastandeasilyengaged

negativelycorrelated.Peoplewho

system1,andconsequentlyreducethe

expressmoreregrethaveworseDM

lossaversionbiasrevealedinthewaya

competenceandoutcomescores.The

problemisframed(gainframevsloss

selfreportedtendencytomaximizeis

frame).Problemspresentedinaforeign

languagearelesssubjecttointuitive

thetask.Thisenabledparticipantsto

biases.Itseemsthatthereductioninthe

comparetheirowndecisionswiththose

contributionofheuristicbiaseswhen

ofanexpert,andtherebytoimprove

problemsarepresentedinaforeign

theirownperformance.

languageislimitedtocontextsinwhich

Sincelongtimeagoindividualshave

emotionalityisakeyfactordrivingsuch

usedexamplesasanaturalformof

biases.Whenproblemsareemotionally

learning(Gonzalez, 2005)whichis

neutral,theinvolvementofheuristic

relateddirectlywiththemirrorneurons

biasesinDMdoesnotseemtobe

astheirnaturalneuralsubstrate.Mirror

modulatedbythelanguageinwhichthe

neuronsareneuronsthatfirebothwhen

problemispresented.(Costa, Foucart,

ananimalactsandwhentheanimal

Arnon, Aparici, & Apesteguia, 2014)

observesthesameactionperformedby
another(Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004).

Ithadbeendemonstratedthatwhen
peoplechoosebetweenoptionsof
differentduration,thebestalternativeis
usuallyonethatisevaluatedasbeing
mostpleasantorashavingthehighest
utility(Klapproth, 2008).

2.9.

Difficulties

Finally,asineveryprocessyoumust
dealwithsomeproblemsthatcanlead
tobadprocesswhichtranslatesintoa
negativefeedbackloopandinterfere
withthehealthoftheprocessandmight

Whenitcomestolearningfrom
decision,Gonzalez(2005)hasbeen
investingondecisionsupportandfound
thatonlyonefeedforwarddecisionaid
wassuccesful:theexpertexemplar
conditionthatinvolvedreplayingthe
decisionsmadebyanexpert.The
individualcontinuedtoimprovetheir
performanceevenaftercessationofthis
feedforwarddecisionsupport.
Participantswhereaskedtoreplayan
expertstrialaftertheyhadperformed

leadtoalesseffectiveDMstyleifwe
treatasanhabit(throughPavlovian
conditioning).
Parallisisbyanalisis(PA)which
consistsontakingtoomuchtime(and
cognitiveeffort)inthefirststagesofthe
DMprevioustothechoosingpoint.
Usually,PAleadtoslowandbad
qualityoutcome.Andalmostalways
turnsouttomakethedecision
dependentoftimepressure(itwillnot

oughttoplayifwetookthenecessarily

overlookingcrucialconsequencesof

timeforeachsinglephase).Amore

youralternatives,givinginadequate

complexdefinitionistheonegivenby

thoughttotradeoffs,disregarding

Lenz&A.Lyles(1985),which

uncertainty,failingtoaccountforyour

describesPAasgenerationof

risktolerance,failingtoplanahead

momentumthatoftencausesastrategic

whendecisionsarelinkedovertime(S.

planningprocesstobecometoo

Hammondetal.1999)Morecomplex

rational.Thismeansthatanexcessive

trapswillmakeusmoreerrorproneby

timeinvestingwhichtranslatesonmore

psychological;thefirstoneisanchoring

cognitiveresourcesworkingtowardsthe

(mindgivesdisproportionateweightto

strategicplanningphaseisnotgood

thefirstinformationitreceives;initial

(assumingthatanexcessofrationality

impressions,ideas,estimatesordata

isnotdesired).Thisconditionexists

anchorsubsequentthoughts),the

whenaplanningsystembecomes

statusquotrap(avoidetakingaction

excessivelyrigid,formalized,

thatwouldupsetthecomfortabilityof

quantitativeanddeterministic.This

theirstatusquo,soitsaviasthat

overrationalitytranslatesinadecrease

perpetuatethecurrentsituation),the

inthelevelofeffectivenessoftheir

sunkcosttrap(wetendtomakechoices

planingprocess.(Lenz & A. Lyles,

inawaythatjustigiespastchoices,even

1985)

whenthepastchoicesnolongerseem
valid,usuallyinvestmentsoftimeor

Hammondetal.hadbeenworkingto

moneythatareunreverable),the

identifyagreatamountofdiseasesor

confirmingevidence(ledustoseekout

atleastmistakeswhenitcomesdownto

informationthatsupportsourexisting

DM.Thoseproblemstakearoleon

instinctorpointofviewwhileavoiding

differentphasesanditwillbeinteresting

informationthatcontradictsit),the

toidentifyinearlystagesofevery

framingtrap(thewayyouaska

singlephase.Thisisanexhaustivelist

questioncanprofundlyinfluencethe

ofthem:workingonthewrong

answeryouget;ifyouframeyour

problem,failingtoidentifyyourkey

problempoorly,youreunlikelyto

objectives,failingtodeveloparangeof

makeasmartchoice),the

goodandcreativealternatives,

overconfidencetrap(overlyconvident

abouttheaccuracyoftheirprediction,
peoplesettoonarrowarangeof

3.Discussion

possibilitiesexposingtoafargreater

Althoughagreatamountofresearchhas

riskthanyourealize),therecallability

beenmadeandiscontinuallybeing

trap(anythingthatdistortsyourability

madeitisremarkablethatthemost

torecalleventsinabalancedwaywill

importantfactorsarenotbeentakenin

distortyourprobabilituassessmentor

somuchconsideration.Yesteryear

estimates),thebaseratetrap(neglection

psychologicalvariableshadbeenleft

ofinformationthatlimitsthedecisions),

off.Lateron,whenhadbeen

theprudencetrap(toomuchprudence

investigatedtheyhadfocusedonthe

canleadtoinappropiatedecisions)and

mostprominentones.Factorslike

theoutguessingrandomnesstrap

emotionortimehadbeenleftapartand

(randomphenomenaremainrandom,

shallbetakenintoaccount.

everychoiceisanewdifferentevent
uninfluencedbyallpreviousevents)(S.

Wecanfinallyobservethatallthose

Hammondetal.,1999).Whentryingto

theorieswhenappliedto

improveaDMprocessjustavoidingthe

complex/importantdecisionswith

tricksandtrapslistedabovewillmakea

difficulttopredict,andevenmore

realgap.

difficulttoweightfutureoutcomes,are
basedprimarelyonexpectativesor
expectacy.Expectativesofapredicted
futureoutcomeforagiveninputbut
withsomanyvariablesandfactors
playingapartinthisprocessthatis
almostimposibletopredictwhich
choiceasubjectwillchoose.Therearea
fewwaysofreframingacomplex
decisionsoitbecomeseasytochoose.
Thefirstoneisbreakitintosmaller
decisions.

Youcanobservethatthemostcritical

Allthosecomponentsgathertogether

phaseturnsouttobetheframingor

whenyouarefacingadecision.Maybe

editingphase(inthecodephase)orI

evenmorebecausethereareagreat

willbetternameittherecodingphase,

amountofneuralbiologicalbases

butfinallyistheonethatrecievesless

assistingaDMtask.

attentionorthesecondonewithless

Theunionofprocessesineachphase

attentionforwhomistakingthe

conductstodifferentbehaviorsand

decision.Onepossiblehypothesisisthat

cognitivemechanisms.Aswellasto

itcanbearesultofanegosexcess

differentdiseaseswhicharephase

functionbecauseweallknowwhatto

sensitive.Wecantakeadvantageofthe

focusonandhowtofocusonitwell(or

currentknowledgewhenfacinga

wethinkso).Thenweskiptothenext

decisionasseenforexamplewhenyou

phaseasrapidaswecan.Another

havetodecideifyouwanttomovetoa

hypothesiscanbethatweallautogrant

newcountryyouknowthatdepending

anexcessofconfidencesoweupdate

howyoupresentyourchoiceyouraffect

ourautoconceptofcompetenceinDM

intensitycanincreaseordecrease.

tobeexpectedasmorecompetentasit
reallyis.

Toendup,itmustbebreaflymentioned
thattakingexpectationprospector

Fromliteraturewecanobservesome

gratefulnessprospectgeneratedifferent

authorscatchtheprocessandexplain

processeswithdifferentgoals,needs,

howitworksbycenteringtheatention

wants,preferences,etc.Gratefulness

ontheprocessotherstendtocenteron

itselfcanbeaprocessandatthesame

thesubject.Eventhougthwecannot

timecanbeusedasacceptanceofthe

dissociateDMprocessfromwho

ultimateoutcome/resultsofachoicefor

decisionmaker(ortheonewhos

theexpectationprocess(whenitisan

actionscreatetheprocess)itishandy

attitudeorajudgewhenmakinga

forstudyingeverysingleaspect,but

judgment).

whenitisdonewithoutfurther
integrationthenitcanleadtodifferent

Futherexplorationsmayincludethe

results.

responsetothispairofhypothesis.

H1:Canwebemoresatisfiedofa
decision(andpossiblyasaresultmake

4. Conclusion

betterchoices)ifweareawareof

Weareinapointthatwearestarting

principlesofdecisionmaking?

usingtechnologytofacilitatethe
processandthereisawiderangeof

H2:Cantreatingeachasagame

availablesolutionsfromcomputer

facilitateimportantdecisions?

softwaretotheincreasepopularityof
ArtificialIntelligence,whichhadbeen

Thesecondhypothesisisarguedinwhat

recentlyappliedtoDM.

weknowfrompsychologyofgames;
whenyouarefacingabigchallenge,

Ibelievethatourbrainfunctioningis

whenreframeitasagame,wetackle

farfrombeingemulatedduetoits

toughchallengeswithmorecreativity,

complexity,inpartthanktoouremotion

moredetermination,moreoptimismand

andheuristicswhichestablishan

wearemorelikelytoreachotherfor

advantatgeratherthananinconventient

help(McGonigal, 2012).

(whichisanotherdiscussion)andifwe
becomemoreusedtoemployingitasa

Somequestionsthatarisewhen

newtoolsetinourtoolboxwhen

studyingthistopicandcanbe

applyingtoDMwecanincreaseour

interestingtocareaboutandcouldbe

competenceandcutofftime(turning

refactoredashypothesistoexplore

theprocesslesstimeconsuming).And

where:isnotanystudyouttherethat

sincetheyarerelatedfactorscrossthe

triestoexplainhowwedevelopDM?

wholeprocess(timeandemotion)

Howwelearntomakedecisions?Why

identifyinghowtheyworks,ingeneral

itisnottaught?Isitrefinable?Howwe

andparticularcases,musthelp.

refinethisprocess?
Anotherconcerningtopicwasthatitis

Furtherresearchmustbedone.First,

reallydifficulttofindstudiesabout

specificresearchwiththepurposeof

attitudetowardDMandaholeaboutthe

identifyeacheffectandhowevery

usageofconditioningtoexplainDMin

singlevariableincideintheprocess

relationwithothervariables.

alone.Itneedstobeproperlyadressed
aswellwithanintegrationalapproach

tohowfactorsinteractwiththeprocess

approachthesubjectpartially(because

itself,whenandhow.Alsohowthose

oftheygradeofespecificity).Further

factorsinteractbetweenthemtocreatea

researchmustbedonetoendupwitha

deeperandmorecomplextruss.Yet,

biggerpictureofwhatcomplexdecision

onceitisaccomplishedwecouldstart

processisandhowcanmakeiteasier

approachingtothestudyofDMasa

bybestunderstandinghowitworks.

toplevelabilityanditcouldbeeasily
teachedtomakebetterimportant

Disclaimer

decisionsinlifeandtomakereal

Inthisreviewthereissolely

significantimprovementsinthe

informationofexpectationtheoriesover

laboratorystudy.

complexdecisions.Alloftheabove
cannotbetranslatedtoothertheories

Limitations

withoutexperimentalinvestigationin

Someofthemhadbeenbutarenot

everycaseandfurthercrossstudyjoints

limitedtotimefactor,thenonrelevant

thatexplainwhyitworks.

informationandessaysthatjust

References
B.R.E.Brown,S.,&Ridderinkhof,K.(2009).Agingandtheneuroeconomicsof
decisionmaking:Areview.Cognitive,Affective&BehavioralNeuroscience,9(4),365
379.
Chang,R.(Mayde2014).Howtomakehardchoices.(TED,Interviewer)
Costa,A.,Foucart,A.,Arnon,I.,Aparici,M.,&Apesteguia,J.(2014)."Piensa"twice:
ontheforeignlanguageeffectindecisionmaking.Cognition(130),236254.
Dewberry,C.,Juanchich,M.,&Narendran,S.(2013).Decisionmakingcompetencein
everydaylife:Therolesofgeneralcognitivestyles,decision.makingstylesand
personality.Personalityandindividualdifferences(55),783788.
DelMissier,F.,Mntyl,T.,&BruinedeBruin,W.(2012).Decisionmaking
competence,executivefunctioning,andgeneralcognitiveabilities.Journalof
BehaviouralDecisionMaking(25),331351.
G.Len,O.(2000).Tomardecisionesdifciles.Madrid:McGrawHill.
Gonzalez,C.(2005).Decisionsupportforrealtime,dynamicdecisionmakingtasks.
Organitzationalbehaviourandhumandecisionprocesses,96,142154.
Kahneman,D.,&Tversky,A.(1979).ProspectTheory:Ananalysisofdecisionunder
risk.Econometrica,47(2),263289.
Klapproth,F.(2008).Timeanddecisionmakinginhumans.Cognitive,Affective&
BehavioralNeuroscience,8(4),509524.
Lenz,L.,&A.Lyles,M.(1985).ParalysisbyAnalysis:IsYourPlanningSystem
BecomingTooRational?LongRangePlaning,18(4),6472.
M.Parker,A.,BruinedeBruin,W.,&Fischhoff,B.(2007).Maximizersversus
satisficers:Decisionmakingstyles,competence,andoutcomes.Judgmentanddecision
making,2(6),342350.
McGonigal,J.(01deJunede2012).Thegamethatcangiveyou10extrayearsoflife.
(TEDGlobal,Interviewer)
Peters,E.,Vstfjll,D.,Grling,T.,&Slovic,P.(2006).Affectanddecisionmaking:a
"hot"topic.Journalofbehaviouraldecisionmaking,19,7985.

Pfister,H.R.,&Bhm,G.(2008).Themultiplicityofemotions:Aframeworkof
emotionalfunctionsindecisionmaking.JudgmentandDecisionmaking,3(1),517.
Pfister,H.R.,&Bhm,G.(2008).Themultiplicityofemotions:Aframeworkof
emotionalfunctionsindecisionmaking.Judgmentanddecisionmaking,3(1),517.
Subramoniam,R.,Huisingh,D.,BabuChinnam,R.,&Subramoniam,S.(2013).
Remanufacturingdecisionmakingframework(RDMF):researchvalidationusingthe
analyticalhierarchicalprocess.Journalofcleanerproduction,40,212220.
S.Hammond,J.,L.Keeney,R.,&Raiffa,H.(1999).Smartchoices.Apracticalguide
tomakingbetterlifedecisions.Boston:Broadwaybooks.
Scott,S.,&Bruce,R.A.(1995).Decisionmakingstyle:thedevelopmentand
assessmentofanewmeasure.EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement,55(5),
818831.
Senlle,A.(1998).Cmotomardecisionesysolucionarproblemas.Barcelona:Gestion
2000.
Russo,J.,&H.Schoemaker,P.(2002).Winingdecisions:howtomaketheright
decisionthefirsttime.London:Piatkus.
Rizzolatti,G.,&Craighero,L.(2004).Themirrorneuronsystem.AnnualReviewof
Neuroscience,27(1),169192.
T.Clemen,R.(1996).Makingharddecisions:AnintroductiontodecisionAnalysis.
InternationalThomsonPublishingInc.
Thunholm,P.(2004).Decisionmakingstyle:habit,styleorboth?Personalityand
individualdifferences(36),931944.