Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Program on t he Management
o f Sc ienc e and Te chno l ogy
IN'RODU C'ION TO A STU DY OF DEC IS ION MAKING
Pe er Soe lberg
(rev i s ed )
S l oan S cho o l o f Managemen t
Ma s sa chus e t t s Ins t i t ut e o f Te chno l ogy
The re s earc h under ly ing thi s paper wa s s uppor te d in par t s b y fund s from the
Ford Founda t ion , t he Na t iona l Aeronaut ic s -and Spa ce Admini s tra t ion , and the
S l oan Schoo l o f Management . The paper shou ld no t b e r eproduced in who l e or
in par t wi t hout t he aut hor ' s pe rm i s s ion .
IN'RODU C'ION TO A STU DY OF DEC ISION MAKING
Many s oc ia l s c ient i s t s from d i f fe rent d i s c ip l ine s re gard human
de c i s ion ma king a s h igh ly impor tant to the ir re spe c t ive f ie l d s .
( 1 ) Mode l s
o f cho i ce and prob lem so lving indee d are centra l to e conomic s , po l i t ica l
s c i ence , cogni t ive p sycho l ogy , admin i s tra t ive theory , management s c i ence ,
s ys t ems eng ine er ing , and t he the ory o f educa t ion . Ye t few the or i s t s have
s t ud ied in de ta i l how human be ing s in fa c t go about mak ing de c i s ions and
( 2 ) I t s e ems mo s t c la s s ica l and ne o - c la s s ica l de c i s i on
3mode l s cont inue to be d i s cus s ed in some th ing o f an emp ir i ca l va cuum .
(
s o lving prob l ems .
The pre s ent s tudy is an a t temp t to contr ibute towards making de c i s ion
the ory a b i t more emp ir i ca l . The overa l l re s earch s tra t egy ha s be en t o
1 . rev iew ex i s t ing no t ions and mode l s o f human cho ic e b ehav ior ;
2 . co l l e c t and sys t ema t i ze de ta i l e d ob s erva t ions o f t he th inking
proce s s o f rea sonab ly S oph i s t i ca t e d de c is ion maker s re so lving
qu i t e d i f f i cu l t prob lems ;
3 . put toge the r a genera l i zab l e and emp ir i ca l l y t e s tab l e mode l o f
s uch de c i s ion pr oce s s e s ;
4 . b eg in to te s t some o f t he centra l propo s i t ions o f t he t heory on
d i f fe rent and larger samp l e s o f de c i s ion maker s in a rea l l i fe
f ie l d s e t t ing .
The centra l i ty o f de c i s i on theory
Why do mode l s o f cho i c e b ehav ior p lay s uch a ke y r o l e in the so c ia l
s c ience s ' L et us S pe cu la te . De c i s ion making and prob lem so lving i s by
de f ini t ion ta sk or ient ed . A large por t ion o f man ' s behavior in so c ie ty i s
s imi lar l y ta sk ori ente d . A sa t i s fa c t ory theor y o f de c i s ion mak ing shou l d
thus prov ide the concep t ua l appara t us for de s cr ib ing a wide range o f human
be havior .
The ro l e o f ra t iona l i t y mode l s in so c ia l s c ie nce i s fur ther enhance d
by the compa t ib l y norma t ive ' s o c ia l eng ineer ing or ienta t ion o f many behaviora l
s c ient i s t s . I t may s e em obv ious to the la t t er tha t few r e s ear ch d ire c t ions
promi se more immed ia t e use fu lne s s o f the ir re s u l ts than s tudi es'
of human
re source a l l oca t ion and de c is ion b e hav ior .
The genera l i ty o f de c i s i on be havior
In wha t way are ta sk a ch iev ing be havior s to b e d i s t ingu i she d from non -
ta s k or iente d be havior ' How are we Opera t iona l ly to d i s t ingu i s h de c i s i on
b ehav ior from ' o ther ' type s o f b ehavior ' Cons ider thre e po s s ib l e answer s
1 . There s ure l y ex i s t be hav ior s tha t ar e no t ta sk or ient e d .
2 . We migh t exc l ude from the doma in o f de c i s ion the ory tho s e behav ior s
whi ch , even i f the y were ta s k o r ient ed , were no t in some sense
' ra t iona l ' .
3 . I f a s ked , mos t men wou ld probab l y deny tha t mo s t o f the t ime
the y were engage d in mak ing cho ic e s and so lving prob lems .
Ye t ne i ther o f the s e re s erva t ions are ve ry sa t i s fac tory . We can argue ,
qu i t e r ea sonab ly , t ha t few oc ca s ions for behavior s are so la ck ing in mo t iva -
t ion or d ire c t ion tha t they canno t b e viewe d a s i f the a c tor were inde ed ta sk
or ien te d (4 )
. Wi t h regard to the ra t iona l i ty cr i t e r ion i t may su f f ice to no te
t ha t in the ab s ence o f a pr ior agreemen t b e tween the ob s erve r and the ob serve d ,
regard ing wha t a re to be the ground ru le s , or boundary cond i t ions , for t he
la t t er ' s ' ra t i ona l i ty '
, the conce p t wi l l in mo s t ins tance s b e emp ir i ca l ly
un0perat ional , and thus large ly vo id o f pre c i s e mean ing . F ina l l y , ind ividua l s
who c la im tha t on ly rare ly are the y fa ce d wi t h de c i s ions t o be made se em to
over l ook the ext en t t o wh ich the ir var ious behavior s cou l d be de s c r ib ed a s
i f they were cho s en from a s e t o f conce ivab l y po s s ib le cour s e s o f ac t ion ,
in re spons e say to c ur rent environmenta l c ond i t ions .
' Thus ne ither o f the above a t tr ibu te s provide us wi th a sharp d icho tomy
for d i s t ingu i sh ing de c is ion from non - de c i s ion be havior . There wi l l s ure l y
be de gre e s and grada t ions , ye t a lmos t a l l be havior invo lve s e l ement s o f de c i -
s ion mak ing . Th i s doe s no t mean , o f cour se , tha t there are no t a l t erna t ive
ways o f the or i z ing about b ehav ior . We wi l l cons ider th i s que s t ion next .
Mani fe s t and te l e o l og i ca l theor ie s o f behavior
Some de s cr ip t ions o f b ehavior have s ub j e c t ive ly va l id re fer ent s . A
theor i s t ' s cons truc t s are thus d ire c t ly ' mean ing fu l” t o hi s human sub j e c t s ,
by vir t ue o f the forme r ' s ident i ty wi th , or a t l ea s t one - to - one corre spondence
to , symbo l ic ent it i te s tha t sub j e c t s a c tua l l y do , or are immed ia t e ly ab le to ,
ut i l i ze in the ir own th ink ing or informa t ion proce s s ing . We m igh t ca l l a
the ory a cons truc ted exc l us ive ly from suc h concep t s ' t e l e o l og i ca l ' .
We can ea s i l y imag ine o ther theor ie s o f human be havior the concep t s
in wh ic h po s s e s s no such ne ce s sar i ly meaning fu l , d ir e c t symbo l ic , r e ference
to t he co g n i t ive proce s s e s p re s umab ly de s cr ibe d by the theor i e s . For more
e f f ic ie nt no ta t ion be l ow we w i l l labe l the la t t er type o f the ory ”mani fe s t ' .
To i l l us tra te , cons ide r che s s p lay ing be hav ior . Mani fe s t de s cr ip t ions
o f che s s behavior cou ld conce ivab ly b e framed in t e rms o f wha tever var iab l e s
an inve s t iga tor migh t b e ab le to dream up , or migh t have s tumb l ed upon , say
in h i s rev iew o f t he p sycho l og ica l l i t e ra t ure on prob l em so lving . To b e more
S pe c i f ic , cons ide r var iab l e s l ike probab i l i ty o f a che s s p layer making a
two - s quare move '
,
' mean l eng th o f t ime per p lay”,' average d i s tance t rave l l ed
by var ious c la s s i f ica t i ons o f che s smen '
, ' fre quency ra t io o f Pawn to non -
Pawn move s ' ,
' ave rage information - b it content per move ' , e t c . Ne i the r o f
the se mea sure s have much re l evance to a man ac t ua l ly engaged in p lay ing ches s i-
Ye t qui t e re l iab l e and s c ie nt i f i ca l l y va l id emp ir ica l de s cr ip t ions o f che s s
be havior conce ivab ly cou l d be cons truc t e d us ing s uch var iab l e s , say by means
o f mu l t ip l e corre la t ion or fac tor ana lysi s .
A te l eo log ica l de s cr ip t ion o f t he same behavior shou ld, as ind ica t ed ,
l im i t the ob s erve r ' s a t t en t ion to thos e var iab l e s he though t were in s ome
s ens e ' mean ing fu l ' t o the sub j e c t s he wa s ob s erving . Thus a t heor i s t o f
che s s be hav ior wou ld ini t ia l ly try to infer wha t symbo l i c code s h i s s ub j e c t s
were us ing for t hinking about move s in the game . The ob s erve r migh t for
examp l e no te tha t each o f the p layer s wa s inde ed try ing t o ”che ck the Opponent ' s
King and tha t var iab l e s he cons idere d in trying to do so o f t en inc l ude d
h i s ' contro l o f t he cent er o f th e che s s board '
,
' whe the r he had i so la t ed or
hang ing p ie ce s threa t ened by the Opponent ' ,
' wha t might be the po s s ib i l i ty
(5 )o f launch ing an a t tack on the King ' s wing e t c . The t heor i s t ' s j ob
wo uld then be to exp la in , e . g . by re ference to even mor e de ta i l ed s ymbo l i c
pro ce s s e s , wha tever regu lar i t ie s in b e hav ior he wa s then ab le to ob serve in
h i s sub ject s , us ing the ir code s for event s in the prob lem environment .
exc l us ive ly .
E i the r mod e o f exp lana t i on may o f co ur se be made into j us t a s s c ien -
t ific a theory , i . e . a s mea s urement re l iab l e and pre d ic t ive l y va l id a
de scr ipt ion , as a t heor i s t ' s s c ie nt i f ic amb i t ions wou l d care to pre s cr ibe .
Ye t a te l eo l og i ca l approa ch to the de s cr ip t ion o f behavi or may in t he l ong
run y ie l d mor e par s imon ious , conce p tua l l y b e t t er integra te d , and more e a s i ly
imp l emente d the or i e s o f so c ia l be hav ior than can be expe c ted from adherent s
o f the l e s s r e s tr i c t ed mani fe s t s tra t egy for the fo l l ow ing obvi ous rea son
A t e l e o l og ica l or ienta t ion l imi t s i t s theor i s t t o h i s s ub j e c t s‘ concep tua l
vocabulary j as u t hef
p opu lat ion Jfrgm whi ch t o s e l e c t var iab l e s and r el ati onsh ip s
to s tudy ;~whereas the .manif e s t - methad l eaves a theor i s t fre e to u make ,up , or
have dub ious ma s s Us tat i s tical . anal ys e s make up for h im , any number of 2d Egg
var iab le s and re la t i onsh ip s wi th wh ich t o de s cr ibe each new ba t ch o f da ta
tha t come s acro s s h i s de sk .
Focus o f th i s s t udy
De c i s ion mak ing s t ud ie s have qu i t e nat ura l ly a dopt ed t he t e l e o l og ica l
( 6 )approa ch t o s o c ia l theor i z ing . Mo s t mod e l s o f cho i c e b ehavior do ut i l i ze
var iab l e s tha t b ear d ire c t concep tua l c orre spondence to the cod ing s cheme s
tha t humans are pre sumed t o ut i l i ze when th inking about cho ice s the y mi gh t
be fa ce d w i t h'
‘Ye ti t s eenm ‘we had t o g ive up our s ear ch for de s cr ip t ive attr i -
bute s tha t woul d d i s cr imminate de c i s ion from non - de c i s ion be havior . A pr ior i
i t appear s t ha t mo s t any form o f human behavior i s a fa ir targe t for
making .
( 7 )
Thus i t w i l l obvious ly no t s uf f ice i f we , a s so c ia l the or i s t s , mere ly
s ta t e tha t we are int er e s t e d in s tudy ing human de c i s i on ma king behavior . In
order to b e ab le to fo cus our re sear ch in tere s t , even min ima l ly , we sha l l
for t hwi t h have to spe c ify mor e pre c i s e ly wha t Eypg o f de c i s i on behavior we
wi sh to exp l ore . The answer , a s far a s th i s s tudy i s concerne d , i s tha t
we want to foc us on non— repe t i t ive , h igh ly unprogrammed , per sona l l y cr i t i ca l ,
exp l ic i t cho ic e be havior by ind ividua l s who were mak ing uni que de c i s ions in
a comp l ex f i e ld s i tua t ion . ' ut be fore we se t ou t t o review the ava i lab l e
mode l s , f ind ing s , and t he ore t i ca l no t ions tha t ma y he l p us formu la t e a work ing
the ory o f the la t ter type o f de c i s ion ma king , l e t us examine bre i fly the
meaning o f each o f the s ix cho i ce a t tr ib ute s in the pre ce d ing s entence .
Non - Re p e t it ive Cho i c e
A non - rep e t i t ive cho ice i s one ident i f ie d by the de c i s ion make r (Dm)
a s be l ong ing to a c la s s o f de c i s ion prob l ems tha t he ha s rare l y , i f eve r ,
faced b e fore , and wh ich he a t t ime o f cho ice expe c t s no t t o have to face aga in
w i th in h i s current p l ann ing hor izon .
One hypo the s i s , wh i ch wou l d make th i s de s cr ip t ive a t tr ibut e irre l evant ,
is tha t the the ory o f non - repe t it ive cho ic e s w i l l be ident i ca l wi t h a t heory
o f repe t i t ive cho i c e s . Ye t there s e em to be two fea ture s o f r epe t i t ive
decision mak ing tha t we wou ld no t expe c t t o ob s e rve in non - repe t i t ive s i t ua t ions
g , Dm wi l l s ucce s s ive ly a t t emp t t o program h i s de c is ion making ,
devo t ing qui t e a b i t o f t ime and computa t iona l r e source s to form -
ulating exp l i c i t l y , try ing out , and then mod i fy ing ru l e s for mak ing
h i s s e r ia l de c i s ion more a utoma t i c , i . e . , computa t iona l l y l e s s
co s t l y , over a se r ie s o f rep it i t ions .
b . Dm wi l l have ava i lab le to h im a memory o f pa s t exper ience s tha t
i s immed ia t e l y app l i cab l e to h i s pre s e nt c ho ic e prob l em . He wi l l
a l s o expe c t to r e ce ive immed ia t e fe e dba ck o f informa t ion regard ing
how he i s pre s ent l y do ing . ' o th wh ich cond i t i ons wi l l enab le Dmz
i . to re s pond in a re f lexive , pa t t e rn re spons ive manne r t o h i s
ta sk environment , and
i i . t o c ommi t h imse l f more rea d i ly i f on ly par t ia l l y a t each
tr ia l , re ly ing on h i s Oppor tun i ty to corre c t error s on
future t r ia l s .
U nprogrammed cho ice
We sp eak o f a de c i s ion a s b e ing h igh ly programmed i f Dm app l ie s an
exp l i c i t , s pec ia l-
purpo se de c is ion ru l e for mak ing the cho ice s he i s ca l l ed
on t o make . Face d w i th wha t i s for h im a h igh ly programmed pr ob lem a l l Dm
need s t o do in orde r t o make de c i s i ons i s to es t ima te and p l ug int o ' h i s
ru l e ' s de c i s ion var iab l e s the current s ta t e o f h i s ta sk environment .( 8 ) The
reader i s s ur e ly a lready fam i l iar wi th the no tab l e s uc ce s s ach ieve d b y re cent
a t t emp t s t o s imu lat e b y d ig i ta l comp ter the qu i te e labora te , but high l y pro -
grammed , cho i ce behavior o f s oph i s t i ca t ed indus tr ia l and pro fe s s iona l de cis ion
maker s .
Exp l i c i t Cho i ce
Above we cons idered the argument tha t mo s t goa l or iente d b ehav ior co ul d
b e de s cr ibe d in d ec i s ion - theoret i cal t erms , a s i f t he sub j e c t were runn ing
t hr ough s er ie s o f de l ibe ra te cho ic e s tha t in turn contro l l ed h i s a c t ions (10)
Ye t i t may be us e fu l t o d i f fe rent ia te a . s i t ua t ions in wh i ch Dm i s i . l e s s
awar e tha t he i s indeed mak ing cho ic e s among a l t erna t ive s , or i i . i f aware
tha t he i s fa ced wi t h cho ic e , i s fo r some rea son pre - commi t te d to fo l l owing a
g iven cour s e o f a c t ion , from b . s i t ua t ions in wh ich Dm i s more exp l ic i t l y
aware tha t he i s about to re j e c t a l t erna t ive s , po s s e s s ing a s we l l a wider range
o f d i s cre t ion re gard ing the f ina l na ture o f h i s de c i s ion .
The eve ryday meaning o f de c is ion mak ing c l ear ly enta i l s wha t we have
here labe le d expl ic it cho i c e . Ye t a theor y o f exp l i c i t cho i ce in order to
be comp l e te shou l d a l s o spe c i fy the c ir cums tance s under wh ic h a Dm wi l l inde ed
re cogni ze t ha t he i s about to exer c i s e h i s d i s cr e t ionary power s o f s e l e c t ion .
One might s t udy ind ividua l cho ic e b e havior fo r two rea sons : We might
we l l wan t to l earn more about ind ividua l de c i s ion maker s pe r s e . Or e l s e we
may rea l l y want to know more about the be hav ior o f group s , organiza t ions , and
so c ie t ie s , b ut be l ieve t ha t t he na t ure o f the la t ter can be exp l ore d by aggre-
ga t ing our knowl edge about co l l e c t ivi t ie s o f ind ividua l s . S imon has for
examp l e pr epo s ed tha t 2 the ba s ic fea t ur e s o f organ i za t ion s truc t ure de r ive
from the charac t er i s t ic s o f human prob l em so lv ing pro ce s s e s and rat iona l human
( 11 )cho ic e Th i s po s i t ion doe s o f cour se no t imp ly tha t organ iza t iona l and
ind ividua l de c i s ion pro ce s s e s are in any phenomeno log i ca l sens e ident i ca l .
I t s imp ly a s s ume s tha t ind ividua l ro le incumbent s p lay a pr edominant ro l e in
organi za t i ona l cho ice b ehav ior , par t icu lar ly wi t h re spe c t to h igh ly unpro-
grammed , innova t ive , or po or ly s truc t ure d prob lem s o lving s uch tha t a nece s -
sary i f no t su f f ic ient ingre d ie nt for under s tand ing organi za t iona l s truc ture
and proce s se s i s an adequte theor y o f ind ividua l cho i ce .
Our me thod s for s t udy ing organi za t ions , b e ing a s weak a s the y are , make s
it se em somewha t op t imi s t i c for us . t o launch inve s t iga t ions into organ iza t iona l
cho ic e pro ce s se s per se , wi tho ut f ir s t having ga ine d a b e t t er under s tand ing
than we have a t pr e s ent o f the ind ivi dua l bu i l d ing b l ocks tha t we wou ld thus
be try ing to aggrega te . Ye t i t i s ins truc t ive to cons ider some o f the group
and 'organ iza t ion ' var iab l e s tha t we wou ld have to take into a ccount in order
It o mod i fy wha tever the or y o f 'ind iv idua l cho ic e in i so la t ion ' tha t we migh t
devel op
1 . Para l le l pro ce s s ing . Organi za t ions work on severa l th ing s a t once .
Ind ividua l s ar e mor e ne ar ly s e quent ia l prob lem so lver s . Para l l e l pro ce s s ing
would re qu ire us to amend a so l i tary cho ic e the or y w i th cons idera t ions de r iv ing
from a d ivi s ion o f labor among or gan iza t iona l sub - uni t s , i . e . from the ne e d
to take int o acco unt the mod i f i ca t ions tha t p lann ing , coord ina t ion , and commun i -
ca t ion among s epara te ind iv idua l s work ing on the same prob l em impo s e on a theor y
o f organ iza t iona l cho ic e
ii . Organi za t iona l inf l uence pro ce s s e s . An ind ividua l wor king a lougeL
d i f fe r s from one work ing wi t h o t her s a l so to the exten t tha t the la t t er ha s
to work through o the r peop le '
, b e ing in turn s ub j e c t to the ir inf luence and
expe c ta t ions on h im dur ing t he s o lu ti on o f a common prob lem . Thu s o ther pe op le ' s
l l
mo t iva t ions and organi za t ion s ub - goa l s mus t enter into our spe c i f i ca t ion o f
any g iven ro l e incumbent ' s de c i s i on mak ing ob j e c t ive s and cons tra int s . S imi -
lar ly , we expe c t tha t s tr i c t ly prob lem irre levant cons i dera t ion s , l ike per sona l
p ower po l i t i c s and car eer surv iva l tac t i c s , wou ld pr e s ent po tent sour c e s o f
no i s e for any theory o f intra - organ izati onal de c i s ion mak ing tha t purpor ted
to pre s e nt pr ob l em so lving a s an order ly , ent ire ly ta sk or ient e d se quence o f
c ho ic e s f l owing imper sona l ly through t he layer s o f an organ iza t ion -
1 1 1 . Forma l i zed informa t ion pro ce s s e s . Organ iza t i ona l ru le s o f pro ce dur e
serve not mer e ly to exp l i ca t e the programs us e d b y ind ividua l s for making
rep e t i t ive decis i ons . They a l so o f t en de f ine t he boundar ie s o f mo s t incum -
bent Dms ' prob l em so lving d i s cr e t ion . Thus we can aga in expe c t tha t an organ -
izat ional c ontext s erve s t o l imi t a Dm ' s cho ic e behavior in ways no t pre d ic tab le
from ind ividua l cons idera t ions a l one . The fac t tha t informa t ion c ode s and
info rma t ion s t orage s ys t ems t end to ge t s tandar d i zed in forma l group s provide s
ye t ano t her rea son for expe c t ing tha t organ iza t iona l prob lem s o lving wi l l be
a much more s tr uc t ure d , and per hap s l e s s innova t ive , a f fa ir than iknr the ca se
o f ind ividua l de c i s ion maker s working a l one .
Comp lex ta sk environmen t
We wi l l br ie f ly cons ider the la s t o f the s ix a t tr ibu te s o f cho ic e we
emp l oye d in i t ia l l y in'
order l to fo cus our re s ear ch a t t ent ion in the f i e ld
o f de c i s ion mak ing . A s imp l e ta sk env ir onment i s de f ined a s one in wh ich Dm
ha s ac ce s s t o , and i s ab le to pro ce s s in the t ime ava i l ab l e t o h im , a l l infor -
mat ion r e levant t o h i s c ho i ce . In a s imp l e ta sk e nvironment Dm wi l l e i ther
have ava i lab le an a lgor i th tha t guarrantee s h im a so lu t ion , or e l s e i t wi l l
be wi th in h is computa t iona l power to cha s e down a l l branche s o f the s ear ch
tre e r epre se nt ing the de c i s ion a l t erna t ive s fac ing h im
NOTES AND REFERENCES
Cons ider for examp le the c entra l ro l e p layed by de c i s ion conc ep t s in the
fo l low ing key work s : J .M . Hender son and R .E . Quand t , Mi croe conomi c the ory ,
New York : McGraw - Hi l l , 19 58 ; P . Samue l s on , Founda t i ons o f e conomi c the ory
o f the f irm , Eng lewood C l if f s : Pr ent ice — Ha l l , 19 6 3 ; R .A . Dah l , Modern
po l i t ica l ana lys i s , Eng lewood C l i f f s : Prent ice - Hal l , 19 6 3 ; E .C . ' on f ie ld
and J .Q . Wi l s on, C i tv po l i t i c s , Cambr idge : Harvard and M . I . T . Pr e s s ,
19 6 3 ; H .A . S imon , D .W . Smi thbur g , and V .A . Thompson , Pub l i c admini s tra t ion ,
New Yor k : Knop f , 19 50; A .W . Gou ldner , Pa t t erns o f indus tr ia l bureaucracy ,
Gle ncoe , 1 1 1 : Fre e Pre s s , 19 54 ; J . C . Mar ch and H .A . S imon , Or gan i za t ions ,
New York : Wi ley , 19 58 ; W .W . COOp er , H .J . L eavi t t , M .W . She l ly I I , New
The p ro ce s s o f e d uca t ionzCambr idge : Harvard , 19 6 1 ; G .A . Mi l l er ,
E . Ga lanter and K . Pr ibram , P lans and s tr uc t ure o f behavior , New York
Ho l t , 19 60
U nt i l A . Newe l l , J .C . Shaw , and H .A . S imon pub l i she d the ir p ioneer ing
s t udy o f na ive s t udent s so lving log ic theor y prob lems ”E lement s o f a
the ory o f human pr ob l em so lving”, Psycho l . Rev iew , 19 58 , pg, pp .
few t he or i s t s had s t ud ied the pro ce s s e s o f human de c i s i on making in
ade qua te de ta i l . No tab le excep t ions ar e A .D . deGroot , He t danken van den
s chaker , Ams terdam , 19 46 , (Though t and cho ice in che s s , Mouton , 19 6 5 )
R . L . Ha l l and C .J . Hi t ch ,
' Pr i ce t he or y and bus ine s s b ehav ior '
, Oxford
s tud ie s in t he pr ic e me chan i sm , Ox for d , 19 5 1 ; and J .S . ' runer , J .J.
Goodnow , and G .A . Au s t in , A s t udy o f th inking , New Yor k , 19 56 .
Examp l e s o f large ly arm - cha ir spe c ula t i ons about the na t ure o f ra t iona l
cho ic e are mor e obvious in t he e conom ic l i t era t ure . Se e for examp le
K .J. Arrow ,
'U t i l i t i e s ,
a t t i tude s,cho i c e s , a r ev iew no t e”, Econome tr ica ,
19 58 , 29 5 pp . or J . S . Ch ipman ,
”The founda t ions o f ut i l i ty ,
Ec onome tr ica, 19 60, 28 ,
pp . For fur the r d i s cu s s ion o f the dear th
o f emp ir ica l evidence for e conomic de c i s ion the or y s e e R .M . Cyer t and J.G
Mar ch , A be haviora l the ory o f the f irm , Prent i c e Ha l l , 19 6 3 , pp .
14
For examp le , mus ic appre c ia t ion i s no t us ua l ly though t o f a s be ing par t i -
cular ly ta sk or iented . Ye t any rea sonab le de s cr ip t ion o f ae s the t ic s wi l l
inc l ude ru l e s for re cogn iz ing and ca te gor iz ing s ensor y input s,permi t t ing
an affic iando o f mus ic to expre s s h i s s ub j e c t ive j udgement ( choic e ) regard ing
the goodness ' t o h i s ear s o f a g iven per formance ; and corre spond ing ly ,
o f a pa in t ing to h i s eye s , a poem to h i s thought s , e t c .
A . D . deGroot , 0p . c i t .
For a r e cent rev iew o f the f ie ld , whi ch i l lus tra te s the po int , s e e D .W .
Tay l or ' De c i s ion making and prob lem so lving '
, in J .C . Mar ch (ed . )
Handbook o f or gan i za t i ons , Ch icago , 19 65 , pp .
Cons ider the extreme ly w ide range o f be havior addre s s ed by G .A . Mi l l er ,
E . Ga l an ter , and K . Pr ibram , 0 p . c i t ., in terms o f such a. (GPS ) model .
See a l s o J .C . March and H .A . S imon , on . c i t . , pp .
Obvious examp l e s are F .M . To nge,
' Anas semb ly l ine ba lanc ing procedure ,
Mana g ement Sc ience , 1 9 60, 7 , pp . or G .P.E . C l arkson , Por t fo l io
G .A . Mi l l er , E . Ga lanter , and K . Pr ibram's sugge s t ions
'
consti tute'
a . cons i s te nt a pp l i ca t ion o f th i s ar gument , on . c i t .
J . C . March and H .A . S imon , 0p . c i t . p . 16 9 .
Se e H .A . S imon , A behaviora l mode l o f ra t iona l cho i c e Quatr . J . Econ . ,
19 5 5 , 92, pp . for a c lear s ta t ement o f the i s sue s in the debat e .
