IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v249y2016i3p1063-1073.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the role of psychological heuristics in operational research; and a demonstration in military stability operationsAuthor-Name: Keller, Niklas

Author

Listed:
  • Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V.

Abstract

Psychological heuristics are formal models for making decisions that (i) rely on core psychological capacities (e.g., recognizing patterns or recalling information from memory), (ii) do not necessarily use all available information, and process the information they use by simple computations (e.g., ordinal comparisons or un-weighted sums), and (iii) are easy to understand, apply and explain. The contribution of this article is fourfold: First, the conceptual foundation of the psychological heuristics research program is provided, along with a discussion of its relationship to soft and hard OR. Second, empirical evidence and theoretical analyses are presented on the conditions under which psychological heuristics perform on par with or even better than more complex standard models in decision problems such as multi-attribute choice, classification, and forecasting, and in domains as varied as health, economics and management. Third, we demonstrate the application of the psychological heuristics approach to the problem of reducing civilian casualties in military stability operations. Finally, we discuss the role that psychological heuristics can play in OR theory and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V., 2016. "On the role of psychological heuristics in operational research; and a demonstration in military stability operationsAuthor-Name: Keller, Niklas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1063-1073.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:1063-1073
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715006566
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "Portfolio Selection," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 7(1), pages 77-91, March.
    3. Aikman, David & Galesic, Mirta & Gigerenzer, Gerd & Kapadia, Sujit & Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos & Kothiyal, Amit & Murphy, Emma & Neumann, Tobias, 2014. "Financial Stability Paper No 28: Taking uncertainty seriously - simplicity versus complexity in financial regulation," Bank of England Financial Stability Papers 28, Bank of England.
    4. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    5. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    6. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    7. Aikman, David & Galesic, Mirta & Gigerenzer, Gerd & Kapadia, Sujit & Katsikopolous, Konstantinos & Kothiyal, Amit & Murphy, Emma & Neumann, Tobias, 2014. "Taking Uncertainty Seriously: Simplicity versus Complexity in Financial Regulation," MPRA Paper 59908, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Arndt Bröder & Ben Newell, 2008. "Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 205-214, March.
    9. Goldstein, Daniel G. & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2009. "Fast and frugal forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 760-772, October.
    10. Cassey Lee, 2011. "Bounded Rationality And The Emergence Of Simplicity Amidst Complexity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 507-526, July.
    11. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    12. Laura Martignon & Ulrich Hoffrage, 2002. "Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 29-71, February.
    13. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Bounded rationality: the two cultures," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 361-374, December.
    14. Todd, Peter M., 2007. "How much information do we need?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1317-1332, March.
    15. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    16. Gary Klein, 1999. "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262611465, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jaspersen, Johannes G. & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2020. "On the learning patterns and adaptive behavior of terrorist organizations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 221-234.
    2. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    3. Luan, Shenghua & Reb, Jochen, 2017. "Fast-and-frugal trees as noncompensatory models of performance-based personnel decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 29-42.
    4. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Malo, Pekka & Pajala, Tommi & Ravaja, Niklas & Somervuori, Outi & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2018. "Context matters: The impact of product type, emotional attachment and information overload on choice quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 270-279.
    5. Gallice, Andrea, 2017. "An approximate solution to rent-seeking contests with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 673-684.
    6. Phillips, Nathaniel D. & Neth, Hansjörg & Woike, Jan K. & Gaissmaier, Wolfgang, 2017. "FFTrees: A toolbox to create, visualize, and evaluate fast-and-frugal decision trees," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 344-368.
    7. Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V. & Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2018. "When should we use simple decision models? A synthesis of various research strands," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 17-25.
    8. Caballero, William N. & Lunday, Brian J., 2019. "Influence modeling: Mathematical programming representations of persuasion under either risk or uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 266-282.
    9. Nathaniel D. Phillips & Hansjörg Neth & Jan K. Woike & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2017. "FFTrees: A toolbox to create, visualize, and evaluate fast-and-frugal decision trees," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(4), pages 344-368, July.
    10. Leitner, Stephan & Rausch, Alexandra & Behrens, Doris A., 2017. "Distributed investment decisions and forecasting errors: An analysis based on a multi-agent simulation model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 279-294.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:249:y:2016:i:3:p:1063-1073. 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: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.