×

Qualitative heuristics for balancing the pros and cons. (English) Zbl 1140.91333

Summary: 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.

MSC:

91B06 Decision theory
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Amgoud L., Bonnefon J.F. and Prade H. (2005). An argumentation-based approach for multiple criteria decision. In: Godo, L. (eds) Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty–Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp 269–280. Springer Verlag, Berlin · Zbl 1122.68634
[2] Benferhat S., Cayrol C., Dubois D., Lang J. and Prade H. (1993). Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Bajcsy, R. (eds) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 640–645. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA
[3] Benferhat S., Dubois D., Kaci S. and Prade H. (2006). Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Information Fusion 7(1): 135–150
[4] Bröder A. (2000). Assessing the empirical validity of the ”Take-The-Best” heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26(5): 1332–1346 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1332
[5] Bröder A. and Schiffer S. (2003). ”Take The Best” versus simultaneous feature matching: probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132(2): 277–293 · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.2.277
[6] Cacioppo J.T. and Berntson G.G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: a critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin 115(3): 401–423 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401
[7] Cacioppo J.T., Gardner W.L. and Berntson G.G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(5): 839–855 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.839
[8] Dawes R.M. and Corrigan B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin 81(2): 95–106 · doi:10.1037/h0037613
[9] Dubois D. and Fargier H. (2005). On the qualitative comparison of sets of positive and negative affects. In: Godo, L. (eds) Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty–Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp 305–316. Springer-Verlag, Berlin · Zbl 1122.68644
[10] Dubois D. and Fargier H. (2006). Qualitative decision making with bipolar information. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulous, J. and Welty, C. (eds) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp 175–186. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA
[11] Dubois D. and Prade H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: a retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144(1): 3–23 · Zbl 1076.68084 · doi:10.1016/j.fss.2003.10.011
[12] Einhorn H.J. and Hogarth R.M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 13(2): 171–192
[13] Fargier H., Dubois D. and Prade H. (1996). Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81(1): 103–122 · Zbl 0877.90002 · doi:10.1016/0165-0114(95)00243-X
[14] Gigerenzer G. and Goldstein D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103(4): 650–669 · Zbl 02337313 · doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
[15] Hogarth R.M. and Karelaia N. (2005). Simple models for multi-attribute choice with many alternatives: when it does and does not pay to face trade-offs with binary attributes. Management Science 51(12): 1860–1872 · Zbl 1232.91131 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0448
[16] Ito T.A. and Cacioppo J.T. (2005). Variations on a human universal: individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cognition and Emotion 19(1): 1–26 · doi:10.1080/02699930441000120
[17] Johnson E.J., Hershey J., Meszaros J. and Kunreuther H. (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7(1): 35–51 · doi:10.1007/BF01065313
[18] Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. and Thaler R.H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 193–206
[19] Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291 · Zbl 0411.90012 · doi:10.2307/1914185
[20] Katsikopoulos K.V. and Martignon L. (2006). Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: some results on their relative accuracy. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50: 488–494 · Zbl 1151.91420 · doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2006.06.001
[21] Martignon L. and Hoffrage U. (2002). Fast, frugal and fit: simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision 52(1): 29–71 · Zbl 1008.91513 · doi:10.1023/A:1015516217425
[22] Newell B.R. and Shanks D.R. (2003). Take-the-best or look at the rest? Factors influencing ’one-reason’ decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory and Cognition 29(1): 53–65 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.53
[23] Newell B.R., Weston N.J. and Shanks D.R. (2003). Empirical tests of a fast and frugal heuristic: not everyone ”takes-the-best”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91(1): 82–96 · doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00525-3
[24] Rieskamp, J., Hoffrage, U. (1999), When do people use simple heuristics and how can we tell? in G. Gigerenzer, P.M. Todd, and the ABC group (eds.), Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 141–167.
[25] Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297–323 · Zbl 0775.90106 · doi:10.1007/BF00122574
[26] Wald A. (1971). Statistical Decision Functions. Wiley, New York · Zbl 0229.62001
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.