Mellers B A, Schwartz A, Cooke A D
Department of Psychology, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA.
Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49:447-77. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.447.
For many decades, research in judgment and decision making has examined behavioral violations of rational choice theory. In that framework, rationality is expressed as a single correct decision shared by experimenters and subjects that satisfies internal coherence within a set of preferences and beliefs. Outside of psychology, social scientists are now debating the need to modify rational choice theory with behavioral assumptions. Within psychology, researchers are debating assumptions about errors for many different definitions of rationality. Alternative frameworks are being proposed. These frameworks view decisions as more reasonable and adaptive that previously thought. For example, "rule following." Rule following, which occurs when a rule or norm is applied to a situation, often minimizes effort and provides satisfying solutions that are "good enough," though not necessarily the best. When rules are ambiguous, people look for reasons to guide their decisions. They may also let their emotions take charge. This chapter presents recent research on judgment and decision making from traditional and alternative frameworks.
几十年来，判断与决策领域的研究一直在考察违背理性选择理论的行为。在该框架下，理性表现为实验者和受试者共同认可的单一正确决策，该决策在一组偏好和信念中满足内部一致性。在心理学领域之外，社会科学家们正在讨论是否有必要用行为假设来修正理性选择理论。在心理学内部，研究人员正在就许多不同理性定义下的错误假设展开辩论。替代性框架正在被提出。这些框架认为决策比之前认为的更合理、更具适应性。例如，“遵循规则”。当规则或规范应用于某一情境时发生的遵循规则，通常能减少努力，并提供“足够好”（尽管不一定是最佳）的令人满意的解决方案。当规则不明确时，人们会寻找理由来指导他们的决策。他们也可能任由情绪主导。本章介绍了来自传统框架和替代性框架的关于判断与决策的最新研究。
