Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making 2 Mixed Topdown, Bottom-up Creative problem solving (Orasanu & Fischer, 1997). Bottom-up search guided by creative conjectures and extrapolations, as in case-based reasoning and analogical reasoning (Weinreb, 2005, Holyoke & Thagard, 1995; Gentner, Holyoak, & Kokinov, 2001). Expert scientists draw on advanced domain knowledge (a top down element) to search for potentially promising unsolved problems (a bottom- process) and set goals for themselves (Ericsson, 2005). According to research by Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer (1993), expertise develops in a process of deliberate practice, by means of which experts-tobe seek out increasingly difficult tasks, elicit feedback from teachers and coaches, and analyze their failures to improve performance beyond what was “good enough.”
Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making 3 Figure Captions Figure 1. The TDM framework, showing successful transitions from the initial state associated with each decision mode to commitment to a singular course of action, which is followed by reassessment and/or implementation. Figure 2. How various research paradigms are represented in the TDM framework, from left to right, top to bottom: the normative core of Rational Choice Theory, Klein’s Recognition-Primed Decision Making (RPD) model, Connolly’s hedge clipping strategy; Beach’s Image Theory. Figure 3. Representation in TDM framework of five decision types in Orasanu & Fischer’s (1997) decision taxonomy. Top left: Condition-action and Go-No Go. Bottom left: Choice. Middle column: Procedural management. Right column: Scheduling. Broken lines represent ways the decision cycle can fail to deliver an actionable commitment. Figure 4. Story building in the TDM framework (above) and evolution of corresponding story model (below). In story models, lightly outlined rectangles are expectations, planned actions, or hypothesized explanations. Heavily outlined rectangles are events or actions that have been observed. Arrows represent causal influence. X’s mark violations of expectations, and dotted lines show how rebuttals are used to explain these failures. Broken lines represent ways the decision cycle can fail to deliver an actionable commitment. Figure 5. TDM model of action uncertainty. Ovals represent types of uncertainty, and rounded rectangles represent methods. Broken lines represent ways the decision cycle can fail to deliver an actionable commitment. Figure 6. Increase in degree of success as a function of time or cognitive effort invested, for different uncertainty handling methods. 3
Page 1 and 2:
Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod
Page 69: Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod
Page 77: Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimod
show all

Three Roads to Commitment: A Trimodal Theory of Decision Making

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?