Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making 48 processes may be matching, choice, or reassessment, as shown in Table 2. It is not first-order decision making mode that determines action uncertainty and cognitive effort; it is decision making process, and the second-order role of the three modes at that level. CONCLUSION Summary We have argued for a conceptualization of decision making not as choice, but more simply and generally as change in commitment. This led to a Trimodal Decision Making theory, based on recognition of three ways commitments can change, corresponding to modes of decision making that both complement, and sometimes conflict with, one another: Matching generates an action that fits the agent’s role in the current situation. Reasons refer to features of the current setting and decision maker role that are linked to an appropriate action via practices, such as social customs, organizational routines, expert strategies, personal traits, or moral principles. Reassessment monitors, evaluates, and adjusts existing practice to deal with unexpected problems, resolve disagreement, or take advantage of opportunities. Reasons for action refer to its having survived or not survived testing thus far. Choice selects one among given alternatives by comparing their ability to achieve desirable outcomes. Reasons for choice are based on the superior efficiency of the selected option in achieving the decision maker’s ends. Different modes are associated with different criteria for successful performance: i.e., appropriate action (matching), desirable outcomes (choice), and meeting challenges (reassessment). Each mode applies to commitments created by the others and creates commitments to which the others can be applied. Yet they represent competing visions of rationality, which in the most difficult cases can directly conflict. TDM includes an ecological conception of action uncertainty, as distance in cognitive effort from actionable commitment. High or low action uncertainty, and methods that are high or low in cognitive effort, may occur in all three modes of decision making, highlighting similarities in the difficulties they encounter and the strategies they use to manage them, despite differences in the content of reasoning and the normative definition of success. Relationships among existing decision making research paradigms are clarified by locating them in a matrix of decision modes by uncertainty handling methods. A process called melioration can result in reasonable allocations
Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making 49 of time among competing methods or strategies, including immediate action versus continued decision making. A variety of predictions follow when we classify cognitive strategies by the efficiency with which they achieve actionable commitment. The three decision modes operate at the second-order level of cognitive strategies to determine action uncertainty and effort expended. TDM reframes the notions of decision making and uncertainty in a way that is suited for naturalistic research, decision aiding, and training. On the research side, it offers categories and definitions to guide naturalistic observations, implies empirically testable hypotheses, and brings out similarities and differences among various decision paradigms. On the application side, it calls for an expanded normative basis and enlarges the function of cognitive engineering beyond the supporting role assigned to prescription in the standard story. Prescriptive Implications The TDM framework provides a basis for decision support that is more comprehensive than current variants of decision theory, naturalistic decision making, or critical thinking. We will mention a handful of high level design guidelines that are suggested by the framework, which we hope to illustrate and elaborate in the future. 22 Compatibility. Our most basic proposition is that decision aids should support modes of decision making that are appropriate for the situation and the decision maker role, according to matching. This implies that a traditional decision model for comparing multiple alternatives should almost never be the default decision aiding mode. Likewise, support for reassessment should direct attention to aspects of the current course of action that are permitted to change under ethical, organizational, or other constraints. This does not mean that an aid must always impose an initial phase of support for matching (although this may often be the case). It means that cognitive engineers must be aware of the operation of matching and the constraints it imposes on users. Focus. Displays should direct attention to factors that are relevant to the problem as viewed through the current mode: i.e., (a) situation awareness, roles, values, and course of action creation for matching, (b) comparison of outcomes and actions for choice, and (c) course of action monitoring, challenging, and modification for reassessment. For matching, the aid should compare the actual situation with the conditions of relevant practices. For choice, the aid should compare projected action outcomes with desired features across choice alternatives. For reassessment, the aid should compare actual events and actions with those expected. 22 Some on-going decision aiding work (Cohen et al., 2011; Cohen et al., 2008) works with these principles. A prototype system has achieved significant acceptance from US Army end users in the field (Weltman et al., 2011).
Page 1 and 2: Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod
Page 49: Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod
Page 77: Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod

Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?