-->

Theories in Decision Making

Introduction

The decision making process is an important aspect of leadership in any organization, from a unit as small as a family to an organization as complex as the state. In this paper, the author would like to discuss the decision making processes involved in theory and in practice. In the initial stages of this paper, a discussion on the theories on decision making will be presented. Consequently, a presentation of the practical side of the discussion will be tendered through the presentation of the existing processes employed in the three branches of the government. In this context, the decision making capacities of the said branches will concentrate on the policy making function of the government.

Theories in Decision Making

Edwards (1961) prepared the area in the initial review of behavioral decision theory by portraying psychological and economic assumptions of riskless alternative, risky alternative, and games. Becker & McClintock (1967) pursued with an argument of utilities and values which are considered issues that connect behavioral decision theory to philosophy as well as with further social sciences. Rapoport & Wallsten (1972) offered experimental investigations of normative and descriptive paradigms with an accent on dimension. Slovic et al (1977) both reproduced and projected the up-and-coming importance in judgmental heuristics and prejudices. Einhorn & Hogarth (1981) tried to bring together judgmental prejudices with functional contentions that mean decisions have to be reasonable and intelligent. Pitz & Sachs (1984) discussed decision-making in the framework of human information dispensation. Payne et al (1992) emphasized the employment of numerous decision approaches in the production of predilections. The following discussion will be presenting different decision making theories that have been prevalent in both past and existing literature.

• Rational Choice Theory

For quite a number of years, rational choice theory has been the prevailing structure in economics, political science, finance, marketing, and other areas. A lot of academics deemed that breakdown of rationality could not stay alive from competitive market forces. Contraventions were perceived as comparatively inconsequential or artifactual; decision makers either gain knowledge in a fast pace or they are removed from the competition. Academic studies in and decision making has established progressively more and more infringements of rational choice theory, and the significance of behavioral suppositions is currently an animated topic of discussion among social scientists. Behavioral presumptions are becoming visible in current subdisciplines.

• Dynamic Decision Processes

Busemeyer & Townsend (1993) proposed the decision field paradigm to discuss the deliberation development that transpires with contradictory values. The paradigm foresees the sentiment of happiness one may possess on the subject of a vital decision when the accomplishment is remote and the later terror that one experience when the accomplishment of the task is about to happen. Decision field theory similarly foresees the preference setbacks as an object of time pressure, contraventions of stochastic ascendancy, and the converse connection connecting decision time and choice extents. This paradigm of decision making resembles other explanations of cognitive processing, for instance that of Link’s (1992) model of perceptual discrimination and Ratcliff’s (1978) model of memory retrieval.

• Certainty Equivalents

The certainty equivalent of a risk is the quantity of money for which a decision maker is apathetic involving getting the money certainly or playing the risk. With judgment-founded certainty equivalents, subjects affirm the value of an uncertain alternative, frequently as purchasing prices or selling prices. With choice-founded certainty equivalents, the degree of apathy is inferred from a sequence of alternatives between a risk and certain things.

Certainty equivalents are different from choices in a couple of manners. Initially, they can generate dissimilar preference orders. Next, they can breach consequence monotonicity (Birnbaum et al 1992, Mellers et al 1992). For instance, Birnbaum et al (1992) discovered that subjects allocate higher prices to a risk with a 95% possibility of $96, or else $0, than to a risk with a 95% possibility of $96, if not $24. This finding has similarly been established with uncomplicated choice-founded certainty equivalents (Birnbaum 1992) but not with straightforward alternatives (Birnbaum & Sutton 1992) or more compound choice-founded certainty equivalents, for example those anchored on the PEST process (von Winterfeldt et al 1997). Diversities involving measures are significant enough that several universal explanation of predilection should not take for granted that they are equivalent; efforts should be made to illustrate correspondence and dissimilarities among measures.

• Risky and Uncertain Choice

Standard economic paradigms are established on the supposition that utilities and beliefs are distinguishable; nevertheless there is mounting proof in opposition to this concept. Rank reliant utility models loosen up this supposition by permitting decision weights to rely on the rank of a result among the set of all probable results. Luce (1991) and Luce & Fishburn (1991, 1995) recommends and axiomatized a rank-reliant and sign-reliant utility model utilizing an procedure of joint reception, or the concurrent reception of two or more objects. The use of a risky or uncertain alternative is a weighted total of the utilities of its component results, where the weight of a result rely on a specific fashion on the rank order of the result and the symbol of the result corresponding to the status quo. The utility function is presumed to be a negative exponential. Luce and his associates examine the model by investigating individual axioms, and outcomes have, in general, sustained the model (Cho et al 1994, Cho & Luce 1995).

In one investigation, Chung et al (1994) took into consideration a property labeled as event commutativity; the order of events are supposed to have no effect to a decision maker on condition that the results materialize under the identical circumstances (except for ordering). Disobediences would be difficult for the whole class of rank-reliant models. Chung et al discovered concrete confirmation of event commutativity, in agreement with both subjective expected utility and rank-dependent paradigms. Tversky & Kahneman’s (1992) cumulative prospect theory is an additional rank-reliant and sign-dependent version that is the same with rank-reliant and sign-dependent paradigm in all yet two respects. Primarily, it is founded on a dissimilar axiomatization (Wakker & Tversky 1993), and second, it provides dissimilar presumptions concerning the utility function and the weighting function. In the cumulative prospect model, the utility function is a concave power function for gains, and a convex power utility with a more precipitous slope for losses. The weighting function has an inverted S form, first concave then convex.

Decision Making in the Branches of Government

Executive Branch

The president has a significant number of vital functions in the government. The President has specific authority that consists of recommending legislation to Congress in his twelve-monthly address to the state and for the duration of special speaking engagements to Congress. He can similarly call for special sessions of Congress if the said branch of government calls their sessions to a halt earlier than a selection on vital legislation that he suggests, and can veto proposed laws that Congress presents. The president’s role in the decision making process similarly takes in employing individuals to federal positions, counting his cabinet members, the leaders of federal departments, and justices of the Supreme Court. These appointees have got to be reviewed and confirmed by the Senate. He/she similarly employs ambassadors, ministers and consuls to overseas countries, and become a symbol of the country in connection with other states. The President is similarly the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. As chief officer he/she can demand into federal service the state individuals of the National Guard and throughout periods of war or urgent situations that have an effect on the nation, Congress can present the president augmented authority to assist in protecting national security. He/she can formulate agreements with other nations after being ratified by the Senate with a two-thirds vote. Furthermore, the president can present a full or restrictive pardon to an individual who has infringed a law of the state, and the president has the authority to cut down prison terms and decrease fines for individuals condemned of crimes.

Legislative Branch

The discussion on this branch of government will be divided into the two houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In this manner, clarity and coherence of the discussions will be established.

• House of Representatives

The House of Representatives among the two houses of Congress and considered as the legislative body of the nation. The elements of the House possess essential responsibilities, including writing, debating, studying, and passing proposed laws by standing committees which ultimately develop into laws guiding the nation. These proposed laws have to be approved by the President within the span of ten days of being ratified by Congress to be converted into law. If the president prefers to veto a bill, then it can simply be converted into law if 2/3 of the preponderance in both houses of Congress endorses its passage. Over and above creating laws, the House of Representatives have special commissions which examine issues that have an effect on the nation. A number of of its members are in joint committees to dwell on significant issues. A lot of of these committees have heads labeled as chairs that are designated rooted in knowledge and seniority. Both the House and the Senate have an equivalent influence in the legislature. Nevertheless merely the House can generate laws which construct federal taxes (revenue bills). And merely the House of Representatives can bring to court government officials, as well as the President even though the Senate has got to be the one to perform the trials. This permits an equilibrium between Congress and the other branches of government, as well as the executive and judicial branches, in view of the fact that Congress can arrange audits of agencies and present investigations to pay attention to the complaints of citizens as an element of its function known as oversight.

The political faction with the furthermost number of representatives in the House is recognized as the majority party, at the same time as the other faction is acknowledged as the minority party. The leader of the majority party in the House is identified as the speaker of the House, and is designated by other members. If mutually the president and the vice president pass away or turn out to be debilitated (or resign), the speaker of the House is converted into the president. He similarly employs the members of all provisional committees in the House of Representatives. Approximately all of the sessions of Congress, as well as the House of Representatives, are a substance of public record and are in print in the Congressional Record.

• The Senate

Senators are chosen to the positions in the Senate. The Senate is among the two houses of Congress, and one of its most essential utility is generating and passing legislation for the country. The Senate convenes in a disconnected place from the House of Representatives, nevertheless on vital instances may perhaps convene with the House in a joint session. At the same time as the president can discuss an agreement with another country, it does not commence until the Senate endorses the treaty by a two-thirds majority vote. And at the same time as the President is commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces, solely Congress can pronounce war.

This permits for an arrangement of checks and balances involving the authority of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and averts one or the other from becoming overly prevailing. The Supreme Court is similarly a check on the legislative authority of Congress, in view of the fact that it can pronounce a law unconstitutional if it goes against the Constitution. Nevertheless the Senate has got to endorse official appointees that the President presents to key government positions. Special Senate committees scrutinize the nominee. The committees subsequently make suggestions on whether the nominee is supposed to be accepted, and the Senate decides through voting.

The Senate has individual committees instituted to take into consideration whether laws are supposed to be approved, to suggest new laws, and to pay attention to grievances and distress. The political faction with the good number of representatives in the Senate is similarly recognized as the majority party; the other party is identified as the minority party. Components of the majority party are selected to lead committees in the Senate, and components of the Senate select by ballot a majority leader and a minority leader. These leaders help out to schedule when proposed laws will be talked about or examined. At the same time as the Constitution claims that the vice president has recognized authority and power of the Senate, and is acknowledged as the head of the Senate, in actual fact it is merely an official title, and he/she merely comes on essential instances or to shed a tie-breaking ballot. In his nonattendance, a president pro tempore is chosen by the Senate who performs this function. A documentation of most gatherings of the Senate is open to public view, and is available in the Congressional Record.

Judiciary Branch

Currently there are eight associate justices and one chief justice in the Supreme Court. This existing number is decided by the legislative branch of the government. The chief justice is the executive official for the Court. Every justice is permitted one vote when coming up with a decision. To put together a decision, the vote does not require being undivided; as an alternative only one vote can come to a decision in agreement of a decision. The president assigns a justice to the Court, and the Senate has got to substantiate his selection through interviews and examination by a special committee. There are no constitutional prerequisites for a justice, other than when it comes down to it they all comprise a background as lawyers. A justice may possibly cleave to their position for their natural life, even though the majority prefers to retire or resign at some point. For the reason that a court decision can be made anchored on a preponderance of only one vote, a justice or justices who oppose with the majority vote may make a decision to produce and transcribe a dissenting opinion. This dissenting opinion may possibly mention important legal points, and might similarly be utilized as a reference in future cases in the creation of a decision.

The Supreme Court is accountable for taking to mean the Constitution as it is connected with the laws of the nation. This denotes that cases which engross Constitutional law are beneath its authority. The Court has original authority over lawsuits that entail agreements made by the nations, or in which dignitaries from distant countries are parties. And in some disagreements in which the country is a party, the Supreme Court will take in its judicial function. The moment the Supreme Court comes up with a decision, the judgment cannot be petitioned or appealed to any other court of law.

There are a number of lawsuits filed each year nevertheless the Supreme Court barely pays attention to a fraction of them. The Court performs a key function in deciding whether laws that Congress ratifies are in harmony with the Constitution. This is identified as “judicial review” and is a confirmation on the authority of Congress by the judiciary. The well-known Marbury judgement in 1803 dogged that “a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law”, which denotes that if Congress put together laws that defy the Constitution, then the Supreme Court can pronounce that the law is unlawful. The justices have law clerks and secretaries who assist them to research particulars at the close law library and lend a hand with transcribing the drafts of opinions. The justices will take part in an election on a case subsequent to hearing oral arguments, and they may possibly change their mind at any moment. The moment a majority opinion is produced the justices endorse it, even though some may possibly choose to inscribe a dissenting opinion. And even though they agree with the majority opinion, they may possibly oppose on some points, and so will inscribe their own opinion for a case that presents why they arrived to their judgment. The justices by means of discussion and argument may similarly attempt to transform the opinion of other justices and bring them to change their original verdict. Once a judgment is prepared and outlined, it is frequently proclaimed in public, providing particulars on the manner in which the Court came to acquire their decision.

Discussion

In looking in the decision making of every branch of the government as well as their specific roles in the formation of policies, it is noticeable that they could come to conflict among each other. In classifications of governance where there is a division of powers and where disconnected appointment finds out who will manage the distinct establishments, the executive - legislative connections are burdensome and perchance prone to conflict deliberately. At least in view of the fact that the research of Woodrow Wilson (1911) in the premature part of this century, learners of politics have queried the understanding of constitutional arrangements that facilitate to give rise to wastefulness and institutional conflict, hypothesized on the subject of how and if the government functions properly in the face of them, and examined conditions that make worse or satisfy collaboration across the two elected branches. There is an existing modern disagreement between the Senate and the president concerning appointments to the lower bench within the deep-rooted filaments of investigation on institutional relations. Initial contention is descriptive of the present quandary. One should take note of the consequences of coalition government on the equilibrium of institutional power in arrangement of the judiciary and, particularly, to the wearing away of the president’s authority in the new period of alienated partisan power. One should provide importance on the restrictions of presidential guidance in the Congress on issues, such as lower court appointments, that deficiency a solid national profile and therefore do not engender strong media interest, particularly for the period of scandal. This study thus bring to a close by raising the viewpoint that all through episodes of divided partisan control, the institutional standards that otherwise make possible the executive-legislative collaboration in the determining of the lower bench of the judiciary may not be adequate to triumph over the intrinsically conflictual institutional measures that currently govern a nation’s judicial selection process.

References

Becker GM, McClintock CG. 1967. Value: behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 18:239-86

Birnbaum MH, Coffey G, Mellers BA, Weiss R.1992. Utility measurement: configural-weight theory and the judge’s point of view. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18:331-46

Birnbaum MH, Sutton SE. 1992. Scale convergence and utility measurement. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52:183-215

Birnbaum MH. 1992. Issues in utility measurement. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 52:319-30

Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT. 1993. Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychol. Rev. 100:432-59

Cho Y, Luce RD, von Winterfeldt D. 1994. Tests of assumptions about the joint receipt of gambles in rank- and sign-dependent utility theory, J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 20:931-43

Cho Y, Luce RD. 1995. Tests of hypotheses about certainty equivalents and joint receipt of gambles. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 64:229-48

Chung N, yon Winterfeldt D, Luce RD. 1994. An experimental test of event commutativity in decision making under uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 5:394-400

Edwards W. 1961. Behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 12:473-98

Einhorn HJ, Hogarth RM. 1981. Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgment and choice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32:53-88

Link SW. 1992. The Wave Theory of Difference and Similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Luce RD, Fishburn PC. 1991. Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles, J. Risk Uncertain. 4:29-59

Luce RD. 1991. Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles, J. Econ. Theory 53:75-100

Mellers BA, Chang S, Birnbaum MH, Ordonez LD. 1992. Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making, J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 18: 347-61

Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. 1992. Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43:87-131

Pitz GF, Sachs NJ. 1984. Judgment and decision: theory and application. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 35:139 - 63

Rapoport A, Wallsten TS. 1972. Individual decision behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 23: 131-76

Ratcliff R. 1978. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychol. Rev. 85:59-108

Redelmeier DA, Kahneman D. 1996. Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 66(1):3-8

Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. 1977. Behavioral decision theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 28:1-39

Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1992. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5: 297-323

von Winterfeldt D, Chung N, Luce RD, Cho Y. 1997. Tests of consequence monotonicity in decision making under uncertainty. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 23: 406-26

Wakker P, Tversky A. 1993. An axiomatization of cumulative prosect theory. J. Risk Uncertain. 7:147 - 56

Wilson, W. (1911) Constitutional Government in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.