Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making

Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making 23
(3). In Go-No Go decisions, on the other hand, “an action is in progress [e.g., takeoff or landing], a pattern is
recognized that signals dangers [e.g., insufficient thrust during takeoff, dangerous cross-winds on approach to
landing], and the response is pre-set: stop the action” (1993). From the perspective of TDM, go-no go decisions
presuppose a prior process, such as the condition-action matching cycles just discussed, in which the decision maker
has committed to an action and initiated implementation; we include these initial cycles in Figure 3 (upper left,
1a,b,2,a,b,c). The actual go-no go decision is more properly identified with the subsequent reassessment process, in
which decision makers actively monitor for signs of trouble (3a), reject future components of the intention when it
appears unworkable (3b), and halt on-going activity (3c). TDM therefore agrees with Orasanu & Fischer’s
distinction between condition-action and go-no go decision types. In fact, TDM distinguishes them more
fundamentally, and we think more clearly, than Orasanu & Fischer’s (1997) model. (According to the latter, both
apply rules that prescribe “a single available response,” but go-no go involves “bifurcation” of both conditions and
actions, or a “binary option.” 10 )
Orasanu & Fischer (1997) illustrate choice by a diversion decision enacted in a simulated flight scenario. After
crews have aborted a landing due to crosswinds (e.g., the no-go decision modeled in Figure 3, upper left), they are
back to matching (3b). They may now reject the intention to land at the original destination (a no-go decision at a
higher level of generality and scope than rejecting a single attempt) because weather is not improving. After these
two negative reassessment cycles, the normal action is to fly to airport B, the alternate listed on the flight plan,
which is recognized as appropriate by RPD (this is where Figure 3, lower left, picks up, at 4a,b). However, crews
reassess this alternate (5a) and reject it (5b), based on a short runway and bad weather in combination with an
aircraft hydraulic failure. They may now look up another potential landing site and evaluate it in the same way,
finding that it has other problems of its own (e.g., no passenger handling facilities). This cycle of matching and
negative reassessment continues until crew members realize that no landing site within range meets all requirements.
(To simplify, we will assume that the original destination A and alternate B are the only possibilities, yet both have
10 For TDM, No go is not an option or response with the same status as Go; it is simply the rejection of an existing
commitment to Go, leaving a state of null commitment. A replacement action (e.g., going around after rejecting a
landing, or heading to another airport after rejecting the original destination) is often necessary, but it is not
supplied by the go-no go decision, because no go is not equivalent to any specific alternative action. A replacement
must be supplied by matching (via automatic recognition or more extensive deliberation). Notice that if No go were
admitted as an option, then condition-action decisions would also have to be regarded as Go-no go “binary” decision
between doing the action and not doing it. The distinction between condition-action and go-no go decisions
collapses; more importantly, it becomes harder to sustain a distinction between rule-based decisions and choices.