The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective
Abstract
This long-awaited textbook provides a unified perspective of a rich and varied field. It recognises that in order to develop strategies for improving the decision-making process one needs to understand how decisions are made in practice and in what ways behaviour differs from guidelines implied by normative theories of choice. It is the interplay between descriptive, normative, and prescriptive analysis that gives this book a special flavour. Using a set of illustrative examples, Decision Sciences synthesises current research about different types of decision making, including individual, group, organisational, and societal. Special attention is given to the linkage between problem finding and problem solving. The principal message emerging from the book is that decision making entails a complex set of processes that need to be understood in order to develop sound prescriptions or policy advice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140130050084914 · Cited by 193
Mental Contamination and the Debiasing Problem
Wilson, T. D., Centerbar, D. B., & Brekke, N. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.012 · Cited by 160
The calibration of expert judgment: heuristics and biases beyond the laboratory
Koehler, D. J., Brenner, L., & Griffin, D. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.041 · Cited by 146
Gandy, O. H. (2010) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9198-6 · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Kleindorfer, P. R., Kunreuther, H. G., & Schoemaker, P. J. H.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1993-08-27
- OpenAlex
- W2972810224
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
