IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01933885.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Decision Theory Made Relevant: Between the Software and the Shrink

Author

Listed:
  • Itzhak Gilboa

    (GREGH - Groupement de Recherche et d'Etudes en Gestion à HEC - HEC Paris - Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Maria Rouziou
  • Olivier Sibony

    (DRM - Dauphine Recherches en Management - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Decision theory offers a formal approach to decision making, which is often viewed and taught as the rational way to approach managerial decisions. Half a century ago it generated high hopes of capturing and perhaps replacing intuition, and providing the "right" answer in practically all managerial situations. Today it seems fair to say that decision theory has not lived up to these expectations. Behavioral science provides ample evidence that managers fail to follow the dicta of decision theory, even when these are explained to them. As a result, executives often find decision theory frustrating and useless and prefer to rely on their intuition. This paper suggests that this extreme conclusion is unwarranted and calls for a re-appraisal of decision theory. We propose that it should not always be regarded as a mathematical tool that produces the answer; rather, it can be viewed as a framework for a dialog between the decision maker and the decision theorist. In one extreme, the decision theorist studies the problem and provides the "correct'' answer. But in another, the decision theorist only challenges the decision maker's intuition and logic. In between, a whole gamut of possible dialogs exists, in which decision theory doesn't replace intuition, but supports and refines it.

Suggested Citation

  • Itzhak Gilboa & Maria Rouziou & Olivier Sibony, 2018. "Decision Theory Made Relevant: Between the Software and the Shrink," Working Papers hal-01933885, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01933885
    DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3178715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Paul C. Nutt, 1993. "The Identification of Solution Ideas During Organizational Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(9), pages 1071-1085, September.
    3. Etzioni, Amitai, 1986. "Rationality is anti-entropic," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 17-36, March.
    4. Richard H. Thaler, 2008. "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 15-25, 01-02.
    5. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521802345.
    6. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Gilboa,Itzhak, 2009. "Theory of Decision under Uncertainty," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521517324, September.
    9. Itzhak Gilboa & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & David Schmeidler, 2010. "Objective and Subjective Rationality in a Multiple Prior Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 755-770, March.
    10. Ronald A. Howard, 1988. "Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 679-695, June.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    12. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2015. "Analogies and Theories: Formal Models of Reasoning," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198738022.
    13. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1986. "Rationality of Self and Others in an Economic System," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 385-399, October.
    14. Itzhak Gilboa, 2010. "Making Better Decisions: Decision Theory in Practice," Post-Print hal-00756312, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucas Schmeling & Patrik Schönfeldt & Peter Klement & Steffen Wehkamp & Benedikt Hanke & Carsten Agert, 2020. "Development of a Decision-Making Framework for Distributed Energy Systems in a German District," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Peter Klement & Tobias Brandt & Lucas Schmeling & Antonieta Alcorta de Bronstein & Steffen Wehkamp & Fernando Andres Penaherrera Vaca & Mathias Lanezki & Patrik Schönfeldt & Alexander Hill & Nemanja K, 2022. "Local Energy Markets in Action: Smart Integration of National Markets, Distributed Energy Resources and Incentivisation to Promote Citizen Participation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, April.
    3. Philipp Eisenhauer & Janos Gabler & Lena Janys, 2021. "Structural Models for Policy-Making: Coping with Parametric Uncertainty," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 082, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    4. Eisenhauer, Philipp & Gabler, Janos & Janys, Lena, 2021. "Structural Models for Policy-Making: Coping with Parametric Uncertainty," IZA Discussion Papers 14317, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Philipp Eisenhauer & Lena Janys & Christopher Walsh & Janós Gabler, 2023. "Structural Models for Policy-Making," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_484, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.

    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. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    3. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    4. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    5. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    6. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    7. Daniele Pennesi, 2013. "Endogenous Status Quo," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 314, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    8. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    9. Faro, José Heleno & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2019. "Dynamic objective and subjective rationality," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    10. Nolan Ritter & Julia Anna Bingler, 2021. "Do homo sapiens know their prices? Insights on dysfunctional price mechanisms from a large field experiment," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/348, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    11. Thai Ha-Huy, 2019. "Savage's theorem with atoms," Documents de recherche 19-05, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    12. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    13. Daniel Serra, 2019. "La neuroéconomie en question : débats et controverses," CEE-M Working Papers halshs-02160911, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    14. Steul, Martina, 2006. "Does the framing of investment portfolios influence risk-taking behavior? Some experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 557-570, August.
    15. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    16. Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2024. "Bounded Rationality, Beliefs, and Behavior," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0037, Berlin School of Economics.
    17. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    18. Fei He & Hao Guan & Yi Kong & Rong Cao & Jiaxi Peng, 2014. "Some Individual Differences Influencing the Propensity to Happiness: Insights from Behavioral Economics," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 897-908, November.
    19. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    20. Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2001. "Prospect Theory, Mental Accounting, and Differences in Aggregated and Segregated Evaluation of Lottery Portfolios," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 716-733, May.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-01933885. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.