Barriers In The Mathematical Modelling Of Decision-Making
Decision-making is becoming increasingly complex as the number of stakeholders rises,the number of decision-makers rises as well, the implications to consider are various and far-reaching,risks and uncertainties abound and the regulatory framework is growing increasingly complex.Decision-making is caught between the need to thoroughly document and substantiate a choice in frontof oneself and others, on one hand, and the potential traps that increase in number and impact as thecomplexity of the decision-making process increases, on the other hand. The present paper sought topresent critically the main types of downfalls that a decision-making model may face at the level of anindividual decision-maker. Our approach was to put into relation some of the most notablecontributions from various perspectives in order to obtain an integrated overview of the challengesfaced by decision sciences in formulating a both thorough and life-like decision-making model. Weidentified with this occasion three main potential weaknesses in formal decision modeling:unquantifiable factors, such as feelings or morals, excessive formalism and simplification of modelsthat make them vulnerable to paradoxes, and finally cognitive biases that deviate models from anobjective path. Though scientific literature on each of these topics abounds, it is time to integrate it andset the basis for comprehensive and multi-perspective modeling of decisions.
Volume (Year): 1 (2011)
Issue (Month): 13 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:alu:journl:v:1:y:2011:i:13:p:15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dan-Constantin Danuletiu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.