1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 71, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 71, 2020

Judgment and Decision Making

Abstract

The science of judgment and decision making involves three interrelated forms of research: analysis of the decisions people face, description of their natural responses, and interventions meant to help them do better. After briefly introducing the field's intellectual foundations, we review recent basic research into the three core elements of decision making: judgment, or how people predict the outcomes that will follow possible choices; preference, or how people weigh those outcomes; and choice, or how people combine judgments and preferences to reach a decision. We then review research into two potential sources of behavioral heterogeneity: individual differences in decision-making competence and developmental changes across the life span. Next, we illustrate applications intended to improve individual and organizational decision making in health, public policy, intelligence analysis, and risk management. We emphasize the potential value of coupling analytical and behavioral research and having basic and applied research inform one another.

Keyword(s): decision making, history, judgment, preference, risk, uncertainty
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747
2020-01-04
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/71/1/annurev-psych-010419-050747.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ashton MC, Lee K, Goldberg LR 2004. A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87:707–21
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Atanasov P, Rescober P, Stone E, Swift SA, Servan-Schreiber E et al. 2017. Distilling the wisdom of crowds: prediction markets versus prediction polls. Manag. Sci. 63:3691–706
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atran S. 2016. The devoted actor: unconditional commitment and intractable conflict across cultures. Curr. Anthropol. 57:Suppl. 13S192–203
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baddeley AD. 1979. Applied cognitive and cognitive applied research. Perspectives on Memory Research LG Nilsson 367–88 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron J, Spranca M. 1997. Protected values. Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 70:1–16
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Basu A, Meltzer D. 2007. Value of information on preference heterogeneity and individualized care. Med. Decis. Mak. 27:112–27
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Becker GS. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  8. Birnbaum M. 2011. Testing theories of risky decision making via critical tests. Front. Psychol. 2:315
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blakemore S-J. 2018. Inventing Ourselves: The Secret Life of the Teenage Brain New York: Doubleday
  10. Brehmer B. 1992. Dynamic decision making: human control of complex systems. Acta Psychol 81:211–41
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Broomell SB, Bhatia S. 2014. Parameter recovery for decision modeling using choice data. Decision 1:4252–74
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Broomell SB, Kane PB. 2017. Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 146:2286–301
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bruine de Bruin W, Bostrom A 2013. Assessing what to address in science communication. PNAS 110:Suppl. 314062–68
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bruine de Bruin W, Parker A, Fischhoff B 2007. Individual differences in adult decision-making competence (A-DMC). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92:938–56Reports psychometric validation of a measure assessing internal and external validity of behavioral decision research tasks.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bryant A, Charmaz K, eds. 2007. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory London: Sage
  16. Budescu DV, Erev I, Wallsten TS, Yates JF, eds. 1997. Stochastic and cognitive models of confidence. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 10:3)Review of approaches to evaluating performance on probability assessment tasks.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Canfield C, Davis AL, Fischhoff B, Forget A, Pearman S, Thomas J 2017. Replication: challenges in using data logs to validate phishing detection ability metrics Paper presented at the 13th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2017) Santa Clara, CA: July 12–14 https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2017/soups2017-canfield.pdf
  18. Canfield C, Fischhoff B. 2018. Setting priorities for behavioral interventions: an application to reducing phishing risks. Risk Anal 38:4826–38
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Casey BJ 2013. The teen brain. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22:2)
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K et al. 2007. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap Cooperative Group during its first two years. Med. Care 45:53–11
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Chang Y, Schechter L. 2015. Stability of experimental and survey measures of time, risk, and social preferences: a review and some new results. J. Dev. Econ. 117:151–70
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chen RS, Boulding E, Schneider SH, eds. 1983. Social Science Research and Climate Change Dordrecht, Neth: D. Reidel
  23. Corner A, Shaw C, Clarke J 2018. Principles for Effective Communication and Public Engagement on Climate Change: A Handbook for IPCC Authors Oxford, UK: Clim. Outreach
  24. Curley SP. 2007. The application of Dempster-Shafer theory demonstrated with justification provided by legal evidence. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2:5257–76
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Danileiko I, Lee MD. 2018. A model-based approach to the wisdom of the crowd in category learning. Cogn. Sci. 42:S3861–83
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Dasgupta I, Schulz E, Gershman SJ 2017. Where do hypotheses come from?. Cogn. Psychol. 96:1–25
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Davis-Stober CP, Budescu DV, Dana J, Broomell SB 2014. When is a crowd wise?. Decision 1:79–101
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Davis-Stober CP, Park S, Brown N, Regenwetter M 2016. Reported violations of rationality may be aggregation artifacts. PNAS 113:33E4761–63
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl P 1989. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243:1668–74Summary of research comparing predictive validity of expert judgments and statistical models.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Del Missier FD, Hansson P, Parker AM, Bruine de Bruin W, Nilsson L-G, Mantyla T 2015. Unraveling the aging skein: disentangling sensory and cognitive predictors of age-related differences in decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 30:1123–39
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dewitt B, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Cella D, Hays RD et al. 2018. Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System: the PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) scoring system. Med. Decis. Mak. 38:6683–98
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dhami MK, Mandel DR, Mellers BA, Tetlock PE 2015. Improving intelligence analysis with decision science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:6753–57
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Downs JS, Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B 2008. Patients’ vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine 26:1595–607
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Downs JS, Murray PJ, Bruine de Bruin W, White JP, Palmgren C, Fischhoff B 2004. Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females’ STD risk: a randomized controlled trial. Soc. Sci. Med. 59:81561–72
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Edwards W. 1954. A theory of decision making. Psychol. Bull. 51:4380–417Seminal article for the field, connecting analytical and behavioral approaches to decision making.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Edwards W. 1961. Behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 12:473–98
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Edwards W, Lindman H, Savage LJ 1963. Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychol. Rev. 70:193–242Introduction to Bayesian inference, written for psychologists, providing normative standard for assessment of bias.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Elkind D. 1967. Egocentrism in adolescence. Child Dev 38:41025–34
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Engel L, Bansback N, Bryan S, Doyle-Waters MM, Whitehurst DGT 2016. Exclusion criteria in national health state valuation studies: a systematic review. Med. Decis. Mak. 36:7798–810
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ericsson KA, Simon HA. 1992. Protocol Analysis Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  41. Ert A. 2018. Introduction to the concept of likelihood and its application. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1:160–69
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ert E, Erev I. 2013. On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: six clarifications. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 8:3214–35
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Farris C, Treat TA, Viken RJ 2010. Alcohol alters men's perceptual and decisional processing of women's sexual interest. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 119:2427–32
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Farris C, Treat TA, Viken RJ, McFall RM 2008. Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 28:48–66
     [Google Scholar]
  45. FDA (Food Drug Adm.) 2018. Benefit-Risk Assessment in Drug Regulatory Decision Making: Draft PDUFA VI Implementation Plan (FY2018–2022) Washington, DC: FDA
  46. Fischhoff B. 1992. Giving advice: decision theory perspectives on sexual assault. Am. Psychol. 47:577–88
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fischhoff B. 1996. The real world: What good is it?. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65:232–48
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fischhoff B. 2008. Assessing adolescent decision-making competence. Dev. Rev. 28:112–28
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Fischhoff B. 2015. The realities of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Science 350:6260527Introduction to behavioral aspects of formal analyses used in policy making.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Fischhoff B. 2017. Breaking ground for psychological science: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Am. Psychol. 72:2118–25
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fischhoff B, Beyth-Marom R. 1983. Hypothesis evaluation from a Bayesian perspective. Psychol. Rev. 90:239–60
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Fischhoff B, Bruine de Bruin W, Guvenc U, Caruso D, Brilliant L 2006. Analyzing disaster risks and plans: an avian flu example. J. Risk Uncertain. 33:133–51
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Fischhoff B, Kadvany J. 2011. Risk: A Very Short Introduction Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  54. Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Derby SL, Keeney RL 1981. Acceptable Risk New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  55. Gärdenfors P, Sahlin N-E, eds. 1988. Decision, Probability, and Utility: Selected Readings Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  56. Girotto V, Gonzalez M. 2008. Children's understanding of posterior probability. Cognition 106:325–44
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Glassman-Fox KT, Weber EU. 2016. What makes risks acceptable? Revisiting the 1978 psychological dimensions of risk. J. Math. Psychol. 75:157–69
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Glöckner A, Hilbig BE, Henninger F, Fiedler S 2016. The reversed description-experience gap: disentangling sources of presentation format effects in risky choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145:5486–508
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Goldberg JH, Millstein S, Schwartz A, Halpern-Felsher B 2009. Intertemporal tradeoffs: perceiving the risk in the benefits of marijuana in a prospective study of adolescents and young adults. Med. Dec. Mak. 29:182–92
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Gonzalez C, Mehlhorn K. 2016. Framing from experience: cognitive processes and predictions of risky choice. Cogn. Sci. 40:1163–91
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Grossmann I. 2017. Wisdom in context. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12:2233–57
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Hadar L, Fox CR. 2009. Information asymmetries in decisions from description versus decisions from experience. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 4:317–25
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hall CC, Zhao J, Shafir E 2014. Self-affirmation among the poor: cognitive and behavioral implications. Psychol. Sci. 25:2619–25
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hertwig R, Barron G, Weber ER, Erev I 2004. Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychol. Sci. 15:8534–39
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Hess TM, Strough J, Lockenhoff CE, eds. 2015. Aging and Decision Making New York: Academic
  66. Heuer RJ. 1999. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis Washington, DC: Cent. Study Intell., Cent. Intell. Agency
  67. Ho EH, Budescu DV, Dhami MK, Mandel DR 2015. Improving the communication of uncertainty in climate science and intelligence analysis. Behav. Sci. Policy 1:253–66
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Huber GP. 1983. Cognitive style as a basis for MIS and DSS designs: much ADO about nothing. ? Manag. Sci. 29:567–79
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Huber J, Payne JW, Puto CP 2014. Let's be honest about the attraction effect. J. Mark. Res. 51:8520–25
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Jaccard J. 2012. The reasoned action model: directions for future research. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 640:58–80
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Jackson SA, Kleitman S, Stankov L, Howie P 2017. Individual differences in decision making depend on cognitive abilities, monitoring, and control. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 30:2209–23
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Jacobs JE, Klaczynski P, eds. 2005. The Development of Judgment and Decision Making in Children and Adults Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  73. Kahneman C. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
  74. Kahneman D, Klein G. 2009. Conditions for intuitive expertise. Am. Psychol. 64:515–26
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:2263–92
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Kaplan EH. 2011. Operations research and intelligence analysis. Intelligence Analysis: Behavioral and Social Science Foundations Natl. Res. Counc 31–56 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Karelaia N, Hogarth R. 2008. Determinants of linear judgment: a meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychol. Bull. 134:3404–26
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Kellen D, Pachur T, Hertwig R 2016. How (in)variant are subjective representations of described and experienced risk and rewards. ? Cognition 157:126–38
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Kent S. 1964. Words of estimative probability. Stud. Intell. 8:449–65
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Kyburg HE, Smokler HE, eds. 1964. Studies in Subjective Probability New York: Wiley
  81. Lanir Z, Kahneman D. 2006. An experiment in decision analysis in Israel in 1975. Stud. Intell. 50:411–19
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Lerner JS. 2019. Decision science meets national security: a personal perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:196–100
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS 2015. Emotion and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66:799–823
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Levy BR, Slade MD, Pietrzak RH, Ferucci L 2018. Positive age beliefs protect against dementia even among elders with high-risk gene. PLOS ONE 13:2e0191004
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B. 1980. Training for calibration. Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 26:149–71
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, eds. 2006. Construction of Preferences London: Earthscan
  87. Lieder F, Griffiths TL, Hsu M 2018. Overrepresentation of extreme events in decision making reflects rational use of cognitive resources. Psychol. Rev. 125:11–32
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Lynn SK, Barrett LF. 2014. “Utilizing” signal detection theory. Psychol. Sci. 25:91663–73
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Mannes AE, Soll JB, Larrick RP. 2014. The wisdom of select crowds. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107:2276–99
     [Google Scholar]
  90. May R. 1991. Overconfidence in overconfidence. Progress in Decision Utility and Risk Theory A Chikán 67–76 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Medin D, Ojalehto B, Marin A, Berg M 2017. Systems of (non-)diversity. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:0088Strong statement regarding the need for, and benefits of, diversity in all aspects of behavioral research.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Merkle EC, Steyvers M. 2013. Choosing a strictly proper scoring rule. Decis. Anal. 10:4292–304
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Meyerhoff J, Liebe U. 2010. Determinants of protest responses in environmental valuation: a meta-study. Ecol. Econ. 70:366–74
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH 2009. How can decision making be improved?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4:379–83
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Mohan D, Farris C, Fischhoff B, Rosengart MR, Angus D et al. 2017. Testing the efficacy of a video game versus a traditional education program at improving physician decision making in trauma triage: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ 359:j5416
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Mohan D, Rosengart MR, Farris C, Fischhoff B, Angus DC, Barnato AE 2012. Sources of non-compliance with clinical practice guidelines in trauma triage: a decision science study. Implement. Sci. 7:103
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Moore DA, Swift SA, Minster A, Mellers BA, Ungar LH et al. 2017. Confidence calibration in a multiyear geopolitical forecasting competition. Manag. Sci. 63:113552–65
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Morgan MG. 2017. Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis New York: Cambridge Univ. PressAccessible introduction to policy analysis, highlighting the centrality of behavioral decision research to the field.
  99. Mullainathan S, Shafir E. 2013. Scarcity New York: Picador
  100. Murphy AH, Winkler RE. 1974. Probability forecasts. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 55:1449–53
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Natl. Res. Counc 2011. Intelligence Analysis for Tomorrow Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  102. Natl. Sci. Board 2014. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (NSB 14-01) Arlington, VA: Natl. Sci. Found https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/etc/nsb1401.pdf
  103. O'Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH et al. 2006. Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Expert Probabilities Chichester, UK: Wiley
  104. Oppenheimer DM, Kelso E. 2015. Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66:277–94
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Ott. Hosp 2019. Patient decision aids. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Parker AM, Bruine de Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Weller J 2018. Robustness of decision-making competence: evidence from two measures and an 11-year longitudinal study. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 31:380–91
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Parker AM, Fischhoff B. 2005. Decision-making competence: external validity through an individual-differences approach. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 18:1–27
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Pashler H, McDaniels M, Rohrer D, Bjork R 2009. Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 9:3105–19
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  110. Pedroni A, Frey R, Bruhin A, Dutilh G, Hertwig R 2018. The risk elicitation puzzle. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1:803–9
     [Google Scholar]
  111. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63:1539–69
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Raiffa H. 1968. Decision Analysis Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
  113. Rapoport A, Wallsten TS. 1972. Individual decision behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 23:131–76
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Regenwetter M, Robinson MM. 2017. The construct-behavior gap in behavioral decision research: a challenge beyond replicability. Psychol. Rev. 124:5533–50
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Reyna VF. 2012. A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 7:3332–59
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Reyna VF, Chapman SB, Dougherty MR, Confrey J, eds. 2012. The Adolescent Brain Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
  117. Reyna VF, Mills BA. 2014. Theoretically motivated interventions for reducing sexual risk taking in adolescence: a randomized controlled experiment applying fuzzy-trace theory. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143:41627–48
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 03-633 2005.)
  119. Ross M, Grossmann I, Schryer E 2014. Contrary to psychological and popular opinion, there is no compelling evidence that older adults are disproportionately victimized by consumer fraud. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9:427–42
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Salekin RT. 2015. Forensic Evaluation and Treatment of Juveniles Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
  121. Scherer LD, Burke JF, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Caverly T, Kullgren J et al. 2016. Development of the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale. Health Psychol 35:1276–87
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Johnson JG, Bockenholt U, Goldstein DG, Russo JE et al. 2017. Process-tracing methods in decision making. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26:5442–50
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Schum DA. 1994. The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning New York: Wiley
  124. Schwartz A, Bergus G. 2008. Medical Decision Making New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  125. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. 2013. The Drug Facts Box: improving the communication of prescription drug information. PNAS 110:Suppl. 314069–74
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Shafer G, Tversky A. 1986. Languages and designs for probability judgment. Cogn. Sci. 9:309–39
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Slovic P. 1964. Assessment of risk taking. Psychol. Bull. 61:3220–23
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Slovic P. 2001. Feeling of Risk London: Earthscan
  129. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S 1977. Behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 28:1–39
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. 1971. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Org. Behav. Human Perform. 6:649–744Comprehensive review of early behavioral decision research, presaging future directions.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Slovic S, Slovic P, eds. 2015. Numbers and Nerves: Information, Emotion, and Meaning in a World of Data Corvallis: Or. State Univ. Press
  132. Sniezek JA, Buckley T. 1991. Confidence depends on level of aggregation. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 4:263–72
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Steinberg L, Cauffman E, Woolard J, Graham S, Banich M 2009. Are adolescents less mature than adults? Minors’ access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the alleged APA “flip-flop. .” Am. Psychol. 64:7583–94
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GD 2006. Decision by sampling. Cogn. Psychol. 53:11–26
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Stewart N, Reimers S, Harris AJL 2015. On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: how they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Manag. Sci. 61:3687–705
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Svenson O. 1979. Process descriptions of decision making. Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23:86–112
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Swets JA, Dawes RM, Monahan J 2000. Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 1:11–26Introduction to diagnostic decisions, showing diverse applications of behaviorally informed signal detection theory research.
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Szaszi B, Palinkas A, Palfi B, Szollosi A, Aczel B 2017. A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: toward understanding when and why nudges work. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 31:7355–66
     [Google Scholar]
  139. Tarter R, Vanyukov M. 2001. Introduction: theoretical and operational framework for research into the etiology of substance use disorder. J. Child Adolesc. Subst. Abuse 10:11–12
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Thaler R, Sunstein C. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  141. Tomassini LA, Solomon I, Romney MB, Krogstad JL 1982. Calibration of auditors’ probabilistic judgments: some empirical evidence. Org. Behav. Hum. Perform. 30:391–406
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Tong J, Feiler D. 2017. A behavioral model of forecasting: naïve statistics on mental models. Manag. Sci. 63:113609–27
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:41571124–31Seminal article for heuristics and biases approaches to judgment and decision making.
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1983. Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol. Rev. 90:293–315
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5:4297–323
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Üklümen G, Fox CR, Malle BF 2016. Two dimensions of subjective uncertainty: clues from natural language. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145:101280–97
     [Google Scholar]
  147. van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E 2018. Scientific agreement can neutralize the politicization of facts. Nat. Human Behav. 2:2–3
     [Google Scholar]
  148. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  149. von Winterfeldt D. 2013. Bridging the gap between science and decision making. PNAS 110:14055–61
     [Google Scholar]
  150. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W 1986. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  151. Walasek L, Mullett TL, Stewart N 2018. A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts Work. Pap., Univ. Warwick Coventry, UK:
  152. Walters DJ, Ferbach PM, Fox CR, Sloman SA 2017. Known unknowns: a critical determinant of confidence and calibration. Manag. Sci. 63:124298–307
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Weber EU, Blais A-R, Betz N 2002. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 15:263–90
     [Google Scholar]
  154. Weber EU, Johnson EJ. 2009. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60:53–86
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Wickelgren W. 1977. Speed-accuracy trade-off and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychol 41:67–85
     [Google Scholar]
  156. Wong-Parodi G, Krishnamurti T, Davis AL, Schwartz D, Fischhoff B 2016. Integrating social science in climate and energy solutions: a decision science approach. Nat. Clim. Change 6:563–69Applications of decision science to diverse climate- and energy-related decisions.
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Zikmund-Fisher B. 2019. Helping people know whether measurements have good or bad implications: increasing the evaluability of health and science data communications. Policy Insights Behav. Brain Sci. 6:129–37
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050747
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error