Qualitative Heuristics For Balancing the Pros and Cons

Theory and Decision (Impact Factor: 0.48). 02/2008; 65(1):71-95. DOI: 10.1007/s11238-007-9050-6
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT Balancing the pros and cons of two options is undoubtedly a very appealing decision procedure, but one that has received scarce
scientific attention so far, either formally or empirically. We describe a formal framework for pros and cons decisions, where
the arguments under consideration can be of varying importance, but whose importance cannot be precisely quantified. We then
define eight heuristics for balancing these pros and cons, and compare the predictions of these to the choices made by 62
human participants on a selection of 33 situations. The Levelwise Tallying heuristic clearly emerges as a winner in this competition.
Further refinements of this heuristic are considered in the discussion, as well as its relation to Take the Best and Cumulative
Prospect Theory.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – This paper aims to investigate differences between experts and laypersons concerning the way they assess the importance of each of the various decision attributes (cost, risk, feasibility) taken into consideration during decision processes in an organizational setting. Design/methodology/approach – Nine project managers at building companies (experts), and 18 university students (laypersons) performed a think-aloud assignment aimed at assessing the importance of two attributes (safety and comfort) during an acquisition process of minibuses by a fictitious company. Findings – Experts use less effort for the assignment, but perform the same mental operations in comparison with laypersons. Experts work in less detail than laypersons. Both laypersons and experts disregard important aspects of normative decision theory; for instance, they appear not to check for completeness of their assessments. Practical implications – The authors propose that the main difference between experts and laypersons seems not to be the way in which they conduct importance assessments, but rather the fact that laypersons have to make “clean sheet” assessments, whereas experts can rely on their knowledge and experience to merely modify existing attribute weights. This relying on weights used in previous decisions may lead to sub-optimal choices in non-routine decision situations. Originality/value – In much decision research, the focus is on elicitation of weights and on factors that influence weights, not on the way weights come about. By explicitly addressing the thinking process before the weights are actually set, we gain insight in a stage of the decision process that is rarely addressed. Hence, we potentially create possibilities for improving the weighing process.
    Management Decision 05/2011; 49(5):748-761. · 1.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on reasoning about consequential arguments has been an active but piecemeal enterprise. Previous research considered in depth some subclasses ofconsequential arguments, but further understanding of consequential arguments requires that we address their greater variety, avoiding the risk of over-generalisation from specific examples. Ideally we ought to be able to systematically generate the set of consequential arguments, and then engage in random sampling of stimuli within that set. The current article aims at making steps in that direction, using the theory of utility conditionals as a way to generate a large set of consequential arguments, and offering one study illustrating how the theory can be used for the random sampling of stimuli. Itis expected that further use of this method will bring more diversity to experimental research on consequential arguments, and more robustness to models of argumentation from consequences.
    Thinking and Reasoning 01/2012; 18(3):379-393. · 1.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Farmers, in their role as production managers, have to make daily management decisions about the technical operations to be performed on the biophysical components of their farms. These decisions have important implications in terms of the sustainability of the farm business and deserve in-depth examination with a scientific approach. The traditional decision research paradigm assumes an idealized decision situation in which the farm manager knows all the relevant alternatives, their consequences and probabilities, and has fixed preferences and possesses the cognitive capacity to efficiently process them. Many studies have shown that the farmer's decision-making context does not meet these assumptions. We propose that our understanding of the decision made could be increased by focusing on the natural strategies used by farmers. We present some preliminary thoughts about the issues to be addressed, in particular, the various key notions such as objective, preference, uncertainty, anticipation and rationality. Particular attention is given to the heuristics that farmers use to: (i) select the relevant information to be taken into account; and (ii) simplify the decision process and make it easily tractable. We argue that a bounded rationality approach is required to examine in situ individual management behavior, explain performance differences between farmers and help identify possible improvements.
    IEMSS 2014 - 7th Intl. Congress on Env. Modelling and Software, San Diego; 06/2014


1 Download
Available from

Hélène Fargier