41
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Canonical Theory of Dynamic Decision-Making

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Decision-making behavior is studied in many very different fields, from medicine and economics to psychology and neuroscience, with major contributions from mathematics and statistics, computer science, AI, and other technical disciplines. However the conceptualization of what decision-making is and methods for studying it vary greatly and this has resulted in fragmentation of the field. A theory that can accommodate various perspectives may facilitate interdisciplinary working. We present such a theory in which decision-making is articulated as a set of canonical functions that are sufficiently general to accommodate diverse viewpoints, yet sufficiently precise that they can be instantiated in different ways for specific theoretical or practical purposes. The canons cover the whole decision cycle, from the framing of a decision based on the goals, beliefs, and background knowledge of the decision-maker to the formulation of decision options, establishing preferences over them, and making commitments. Commitments can lead to the initiation of new decisions and any step in the cycle can incorporate reasoning about previous decisions and the rationales for them, and lead to revising or abandoning existing commitments. The theory situates decision-making with respect to other high-level cognitive capabilities like problem solving, planning, and collaborative decision-making. The canonical approach is assessed in three domains: cognitive and neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, and decision engineering.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

            This article described three heuristics that are employed in making judgements under uncertainty: (i) representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class or process B; (ii) availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development; and (iii) adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available. These heuristics are highly economical and usually effective, but they lead to systematic and predictable errors. A better understanding of these heuristics and of the biases to which they lead could improve judgements and decisions in situations of uncertainty.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              To Err Is Human : Building a Safer Health System

              (2000)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                12 July 2012
                02 April 2013
                2013
                : 4
                : 150
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Oxford University Oxford, UK
                [2] 2University College London London, UK
                [3] 3Birkbeck, University of London London, UK
                [4] 4Deontics Research Oxford, UK
                Author notes

                Edited by: Erica Yu, University of Maryland, USA

                Reviewed by: Christian C. Luhmann, Stony Brook University, USA; Lael Schooler, Max-Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany

                *Correspondence: John Fox, Department of Engineering Science, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK. e-mail: john.fox@ 123456eng.ox.ac.uk

                This article was submitted to Frontiers in Cognitive Science, a specialty of Frontiers in Psychology.

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00150
                3613596
                23565100
                1c47777f-5530-41fe-9533-8bc2e3b0a196
                Copyright © 2013 Fox, Cooper and Glasspool.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and subject to any copyright notices concerning any third-party graphics etc.

                History
                : 21 June 2012
                : 08 March 2013
                Page count
                Figures: 9, Tables: 5, Equations: 10, References: 70, Pages: 19, Words: 15295
                Categories
                Psychology
                Hypothesis and Theory

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                decision-making,autonomous agents,clinical decision-making,unified theories of cognition,cognitive systems

                Comments

                Comment on this article