IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2013-145-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heads and Hearts: Three Methods for Explicating Judgment and Decision Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Warren Thorngate

Abstract

Agent-based models are more likely to generate accurate outputs if they incorporate valid representations of human agents than if they don't. The present article outlines three research methodologies commonly used for explicating the cognitive processes and motivational orientations of human judgment and decision making: policy capturing, information seeking, and social choice. Examples are given to demonstrate how each methodology might be employed to supplement more traditional qualitative methods such as interviews and content analyses. Suggestions for encoding results of the three methodologies in agent-based models are also given, as are caveats about methodological practicalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Warren Thorngate, 2015. "Heads and Hearts: Three Methods for Explicating Judgment and Decision Processes," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(1), pages 1-14.
    • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2013-145-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/18/1/14/14.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bettman, James R & Kakkar, Pradeep, 1977. "Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 3(4), pages 233-240, March.
    2. Esser, James K., 1998. "Alive and Well after 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 116-141, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Sophie E. Scharf & Monika Wiegelmann & Arndt Bröder, 2019. "Information search in everyday decisions: The generalizability of the attraction search effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 488-512, July.
    3. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Gerard Seijts & Alyson Byrne & Mary M. Crossan & Jeffrey Gandz, 2019. "Leader character in board governance," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(1), pages 227-258, March.
    5. Johnson, Joseph G. & Raab, Markus, 2003. "Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 215-229, July.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3077 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2018. "The effect of attribute-alternative matrix displays on preferences and processing strategies," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 113-132.
    8. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    9. Alessia Isopi & Daniele Nosenzo & Chris Starmer, 2014. "Does consultation improve decision-making?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 377-388, October.
    10. Muqtafi Akhmad & Shuang Chang & Hiroshi Deguchi, 2021. "Closed-mindedness and insulation in groupthink: their effects and the devil’s advocacy as a preventive measure," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 455-478, November.
    11. Savannah Wei Shi & Michel Wedel & F. G. M. (Rik) Pieters, 2013. "Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1009-1026, May.
    12. Benjamin Polak & Rupert Stadler & Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann & Marc Cäsar & Jan Landwehr, 2010. "Aufpreise oder Gesamtpreise? Wirkung der Preisdarstellung auf das individuelle Entscheidungsverhalten," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 62(8), pages 911-932, December.
    13. Cook, Don Lloyd & Coupey, Eloise, 1998. "Consumer Behavior and Unresolved Regulatory Issues in Electronic Marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 231-238, March.
    14. Sáenz-Royo, Carlos & Lozano-Rojo, Álvaro, 2023. "Authoritarianism versus participation in innovation decisions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    15. Paulus, Paul B., 1998. "Developing Consensus about Groupthink after All These Years," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(2-3), pages 362-374, February.
    16. Wang, Shih-Ching & Lang, Mark, 2015. "The effects of special displays on shopping behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 125-132.
    17. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier l’Haridon & Stefan A. Lipman, 2020. "A comparison of individual and collective decision making for standard gamble and time trade-off," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 465-473, April.
    18. Cason, Timothy N. & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Zhang, Jingjing, 2012. "Communication and efficiency in competitive coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 26-43.
    19. Schulz-Hardt, Stefan & Jochims, Marc & Frey, Dieter, 2002. "Productive conflict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 563-586, July.
    20. Kaye-Blake, William & Abell, Walter L. & Zellman, Eva, 2009. "Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-18.
    21. Heribert Gierl & Hans Höser, 2002. "Der Reihenfolgeeffekt auf Präferenzen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 3-18, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2013-145-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.