The Experts below are selected from a list of 962592 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mohamed Mohamed Naim - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management a literature review
Supply Chain Management, 2014Co-Authors: Anthony Alexander, Helen Lisbeth Walker, Mohamed Mohamed NaimAbstract:Purpose – This study aims to aid theory building, the use of Decision theory (DT) concepts in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) Research is examined. Design/methodology/approach – An abductive approach considers two DT concepts, Snowden’s Cynefin framework for sense-making and Keeney’s value-focussed Decision analysis, in a systematic literature review of 160 peer-reviewed papers in English. Findings – Around 60 per cent of the papers on Decision-making in SSCM come from operational Research (OR), which makes explicit use of DT. These are almost all normative and rationalist and focussed on structured Decision contexts. Some exceptions seek to address unstructured Decision contexts via Complex Adaptive Systems or Soft Systems Methodology. Meanwhile, a second set, around 16 per cent, comes from business ethics and are empirical, behavioural Decision Research. Although this set does not explicitly refer to DT, the empirical evidence here supports Keeney’s value-focussed analysis. Research limitatio...
-
Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management a literature review
Supply Chain Management, 2014Co-Authors: Anthony Alexander, Helen Walker, Mohamed Mohamed NaimAbstract:Purpose – To aid theory building, the use of Decision theory (DT) concepts in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) Research is examined. Design/methodology/approach – An abductive approach considers two DT concepts, Snowden’s Cynefin framework for sense-making and Keeney’s value-focussed Decision analysis, in a systematic literature review of 160 peer-reviewed papers in English. Findings – Around 60 per cent of the papers on Decision-making in SSCM come from operational Research (OR), which makes explicit use of DT. These are almost all normative and rationalist and focussed on structured Decision contexts. Some exceptions seek to address unstructured Decision contexts via Complex Adaptive Systems or Soft Systems Methodology. Meanwhile, a second set, around 16 per cent, comes from business ethics and are empirical, behavioural Decision Research. Although this set does not explicitly refer to DT, the empirical evidence here supports Keeney’s value-focussed analysis. Research limitations/implications – There is potential for theory building in SSCM using DT, but the Research only addresses SSCM Research (including corporate responsibility and ethics) and not DT in SCM or wider sustainable development Research. Practical implications – Use of particular Decision analysis methods for SSCM may be improved by better understanding different Decision contexts. Social implications – The Research shows potential synthesis with ethical DT absent from DT and SCM Research. Originality/value – Empirical behavioural Decision analysis for SSCM is considered alongside normative, rational analysis for the first time. Value-focussed DT appears useful for unstructured Decision contexts found in SSCM. Originality/value – Empirical, behavioural Decision analysis for SSCM is considered alongside normative rational analysis for the first time. Value-focussed DT appears useful for unstructured Decision contexts found in SSCM.
Anthony Alexander - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management a literature review
Supply Chain Management, 2014Co-Authors: Anthony Alexander, Helen Lisbeth Walker, Mohamed Mohamed NaimAbstract:Purpose – This study aims to aid theory building, the use of Decision theory (DT) concepts in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) Research is examined. Design/methodology/approach – An abductive approach considers two DT concepts, Snowden’s Cynefin framework for sense-making and Keeney’s value-focussed Decision analysis, in a systematic literature review of 160 peer-reviewed papers in English. Findings – Around 60 per cent of the papers on Decision-making in SSCM come from operational Research (OR), which makes explicit use of DT. These are almost all normative and rationalist and focussed on structured Decision contexts. Some exceptions seek to address unstructured Decision contexts via Complex Adaptive Systems or Soft Systems Methodology. Meanwhile, a second set, around 16 per cent, comes from business ethics and are empirical, behavioural Decision Research. Although this set does not explicitly refer to DT, the empirical evidence here supports Keeney’s value-focussed analysis. Research limitatio...
-
Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management a literature review
Supply Chain Management, 2014Co-Authors: Anthony Alexander, Helen Walker, Mohamed Mohamed NaimAbstract:Purpose – To aid theory building, the use of Decision theory (DT) concepts in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) Research is examined. Design/methodology/approach – An abductive approach considers two DT concepts, Snowden’s Cynefin framework for sense-making and Keeney’s value-focussed Decision analysis, in a systematic literature review of 160 peer-reviewed papers in English. Findings – Around 60 per cent of the papers on Decision-making in SSCM come from operational Research (OR), which makes explicit use of DT. These are almost all normative and rationalist and focussed on structured Decision contexts. Some exceptions seek to address unstructured Decision contexts via Complex Adaptive Systems or Soft Systems Methodology. Meanwhile, a second set, around 16 per cent, comes from business ethics and are empirical, behavioural Decision Research. Although this set does not explicitly refer to DT, the empirical evidence here supports Keeney’s value-focussed analysis. Research limitations/implications – There is potential for theory building in SSCM using DT, but the Research only addresses SSCM Research (including corporate responsibility and ethics) and not DT in SCM or wider sustainable development Research. Practical implications – Use of particular Decision analysis methods for SSCM may be improved by better understanding different Decision contexts. Social implications – The Research shows potential synthesis with ethical DT absent from DT and SCM Research. Originality/value – Empirical behavioural Decision analysis for SSCM is considered alongside normative, rational analysis for the first time. Value-focussed DT appears useful for unstructured Decision contexts found in SSCM. Originality/value – Empirical, behavioural Decision analysis for SSCM is considered alongside normative rational analysis for the first time. Value-focussed DT appears useful for unstructured Decision contexts found in SSCM.
Maria M Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the construct behavior gap in behavioral Decision Research a challenge beyond replicability
Psychological Review, 2017Co-Authors: Michel Regenwetter, Maria M RobinsonAbstract:Behavioral Decision Research compares theoretical constructs like preferences to behavior such as observed choices. Three fairly common links from constructs to behavior are (1) to tally, across participants and Decision problems, the number of choices consistent with one predicted pattern of pairwise preferences; (2) to compare what most people choose in each Decision problem against a predicted preference pattern; or (3) to enumerate the Decision problems in which two experimental conditions generate a 1-sided significant difference in choice frequency 'consistent' with the theory. Although simple, these theoretical links are heuristics. They are subject to well-known reasoning fallacies, most notably the fallacy of sweeping generalization and the fallacy of composition. No amount of replication can alleviate these fallacies. On the contrary, reiterating logically inconsistent theoretical reasoning over and again across studies obfuscates science. As a case in point, we consider pairwise choices among simple lotteries and the hypotheses of overweighting or underweighting of small probabilities, as well as the description-experience gap. We discuss ways to avoid reasoning fallacies in bridging the conceptual gap between hypothetical constructs, such as, for example, "overweighting" to observable pairwise choice data. Although replication is invaluable, successful replication of hard-to-interpret results is not. Behavioral Decision Research stands to gain much theoretical and empirical clarity by spelling out precise and formally explicit theories of how hypothetical constructs translate into observable behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record
Nick Chater - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
relative theory of choice preference change for risky choices
23rd Conference on Subjective Probability Utility and Decision Making, 2011Co-Authors: Petko Kusev, P Van Schaik, Petter Johansson, Peter Ayton, Nick ChaterAbstract:In three experiments we studied the extent to which theories of Decision-making and memory can predict people’s preferences. Studding risky Decisions, we aimed to answer questions about human preferences, prompted by similarities between the leading economic theory Expected Utility Theory (EUT) and the leading psychological theory of human choice under risk - Prospect Theory (PT). People’s behaviour in the face of risk implies that they judge and weight the probability of risky events in characteristic ways that deviate from EUT. Nonetheless, both EUT and PT frameworks share a common assumption: people’s risk preferences and Decisions under risk and uncertainty are independent of task. Accordingly, we studied (i) the lability of human preferences and their relation to choice justifications given in risky Decision-making scenarios, (ii) the dynamics of preference formation for choice with monetary gambles and (iii) the limits of existing theoretical accounts (e.g., UT and PT) by contrasting them with a new theory of risky choice based on the impact of context, complexity and prior choices. The results of all three experiments are not anticipated by EUT, PT or experience-based Decision Research (Hertwig, Barron, Weber, & Erev, 2004).We found evidence that people do not have underlying preferences for risk; instead, context, complexity and prior choices determine preferences even when the utilities (risk and reward) of alternative options are known
-
utility reversals memory and contextual biases with Decision prospects
2010Co-Authors: Petko Kusev, P Van Schaik, Petter Johansson, Peter Ayton, Nick ChaterAbstract:In three experiments, we studied the extent to which theories of Decision making and memory can predict people’s preferences. Studying risky Decisions, we aimed to answer questions about human preferences, prompted by similarities between the leading economic theory, expected utility theory(EUT), and the leading psychological theory of human choice under risk, prospect theory (PT). Accordingly, we studied (1) the lability of human preferences and their relation to choice justifications given in risky Decision-making scenarios, (2) the dynamics of preference formation for choice with monetary gambles, and (3) the limits of existing theoretical accounts (EUT, PT, experience-based Decision Research) by contrasting them with a new theory of risky choice based on the impact of context, complexity, and prior choices. We found evidence that people do not have underlying preferences for risk; instead, context, skills, and memory determine preferences even when the utilities (risk and reward) of alternative options are known.
-
exaggerated risk prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 2009Co-Authors: Petko Kusev, Peter Ayton, Paul Van Schaik, John Dent, Nick ChaterAbstract:In 5 experiments, we studied precautionary Decisions in which participants decided whether or not to buy insurance with specified cost against an undesirable event with specified probability and cost. We compared the risks taken for precautionary Decisions with those taken for equivalent monetary gambles. Fitting these data to Tversky and Kahneman's (1992) prospect theory, we found that the weighting function required to model precautionary Decisions differed from that required for monetary gambles. This result indicates a failure of the descriptive invariance axiom of expected utility theory. For precautionary Decisions, people overweighted small, medium-sized, and moderately large probabilities-they exaggerated risks. This effect is not anticipated by prospect theory or experience-based Decision Research (Hertwig, Barron, Weber, & Erev, 2004). We found evidence that exaggerated risk is caused by the accessibility of events in memory: The weighting function varies as a function of the accessibility of events. This suggests that people's experiences of events leak into Decisions even when risk information is explicitly provided. Our findings highlight a need to investigate how variation in Decision content produces variation in preferences for risk.
Michel Regenwetter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the construct behavior gap in behavioral Decision Research a challenge beyond replicability
Psychological Review, 2017Co-Authors: Michel Regenwetter, Maria M RobinsonAbstract:Behavioral Decision Research compares theoretical constructs like preferences to behavior such as observed choices. Three fairly common links from constructs to behavior are (1) to tally, across participants and Decision problems, the number of choices consistent with one predicted pattern of pairwise preferences; (2) to compare what most people choose in each Decision problem against a predicted preference pattern; or (3) to enumerate the Decision problems in which two experimental conditions generate a 1-sided significant difference in choice frequency 'consistent' with the theory. Although simple, these theoretical links are heuristics. They are subject to well-known reasoning fallacies, most notably the fallacy of sweeping generalization and the fallacy of composition. No amount of replication can alleviate these fallacies. On the contrary, reiterating logically inconsistent theoretical reasoning over and again across studies obfuscates science. As a case in point, we consider pairwise choices among simple lotteries and the hypotheses of overweighting or underweighting of small probabilities, as well as the description-experience gap. We discuss ways to avoid reasoning fallacies in bridging the conceptual gap between hypothetical constructs, such as, for example, "overweighting" to observable pairwise choice data. Although replication is invaluable, successful replication of hard-to-interpret results is not. Behavioral Decision Research stands to gain much theoretical and empirical clarity by spelling out precise and formally explicit theories of how hypothetical constructs translate into observable behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record
