A study of how individuals solve complex and ill-structured problems
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cognitive processing research has identified both bounded rationality and 'satisficing' as limitations to complex cognitive processing.
“For example, cognitive processing research has identified both bounded rationality and 'satisficing' as limitations to complex cognitive processing [2,15,44,46-50].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [49]
Decision makers, even if they have access to required information and have relevant expertise, may not engage in complex cognitive information processing when making decisions.
“However, decision-making research has shown that decision makers, even if they have access to required information and have relevant expertise, may not engage in complex cognitive information processing when making decisions [13,15,44,46-50].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [49]
Despite the expectation of rationality in policy decision making, policy makers' decisions can include individual and group utility factors and be a source of bias because decision information is rooted in individual cognitive processing.
“Therefore, despite the expectation of rationality in policy decision making, policy makers' decisions can include individual and group utility factors and be a source of bias because decision information is rooted in individual cognitive processing [44-50,61].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [49]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fernandes, R., & Simon, H. A.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Fernandes, Ronald
- Venue
- Policy Sciences
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 225-245
- ISSN
- 0032-2687 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0891
- OpenAlex
- W38741536
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Policy Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Problem Solving Skills Development
- Keywords
- problem solving, ill-structured problems, problem-solving strategies, verbal protocols, propositional representation, mental representation, professional training, national culture, hunger, cross-cultural comparison
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
