In collaboration with Payame Noor University and Iranian Association of Social Psychology

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor of Management and Educational Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran.

2 PhD student, Department of Management and Educational Planning, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Tehran.

Abstract

Aim: Decision making is one of the most important aspects of our individual and social lives. In spite of various models and frameworks of decision making, no comprehensive model has been proposed so far to integrate cognitive dimensions in decision making models. In the current era, with the development and advancement of cognitive sciences, it’s necessary to deepen our studies in this field.  Thus, our aim was to identify the current status of the studies conducted about components of decision making. Method: All themes of decision making were identified through systematic review literature using meta analysis. The data coding was done with Nvivo-11. Finally, 80 codes of decision making were categorized in 26 categories and 5 themes  (contextual factors, individual factors, cognitive readiness and cognitive distortions). Then the importance and priority of each proposed dimension was determined using Shannon quantitative method based on content analysis. Results & Conclusion: Thus, this study is innovative in terms of both results and methodology. The other innovation of this study is the comprehensive integration of cognitive components into decision making models.

Keywords

ـ حمیدی زاده، م.ر. (1387) تصمیم‌گیری  نو ین . تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه عالی دفاع ملی
ـ خرازی، س.ک. (1396). مقدمه ای بر علوم شناختی و کاربردهای آن. تهران: سازمان سمت.
ـ نادری، ا. (1392). اقتصاد شناختی: رویکردی نوین برای تبیین تصمیم‌گیری‌های اقتصادی. فصلنا مه برنامه ر یز ی و بودجه، 2، 99-125.
- Bratvold, R. B., Begg, S. H., & Rasheva, S. (2010, January). A new approach to uncertainty quantification for decision making. In SPE Hydrocarbon Economics and Evaluation Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Gardelle Vd, Summerfield C. Robust averaging during perceptual judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108(32): 13341-6.
-Gilovich T, Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
-Gold JI, Shadlen MN. The neural basis of decision making. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007; 30: 535-74
-Glimcher PW. Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain: the science of neuroeconomics. Cambridge: A Bradford Book; 2004.Poulton, E. (1994). Behavioral decision theory:A new approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
-Holsti OR. Cognitive process approaches to decision-making: Foreign policy actors viewed psychologically. American Behavioral Scientist. 1976;20(1):11-32.
-Hudson VM. Foreign policy decision making (Revisited). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US; 2002. p. 1-20.
-Kahneman D SP, Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982.
-Kiani R, Hanks TD, Shadlen MN. When is enough enough? Nat Neurosci. 2006; 9(7): 861-3
-Mahmoodi, A., Bang, D., Olsen, K., Zhao, Y. A., Shi, Z., Broberg, K., ... & Roepstorff, A. (2015). Equality bias impairs collective decision-making across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(12), 3835-3840.
-March JSH. Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1958.
-Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review. 1956;63(2):81.
-Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, DG. The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS MED6 (7): e1000097.doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
-Reed, S.K. (2006). Cognition: Theory and applications, (7th ed.). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.
-Simon HA. A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1955;69(1):99-118.
-Shadlen, M. N., & Kiani, R. (2013). Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron, 80(3), 791-806.
-Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1992). Person, process, choice: The psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 16(2), 23-46.
-Smith, P. L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in neurosciences, 27(3), 161-168.
-Simon, H.A. (1979). Rational decision-making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513 .
-Tohidi-Moghadam. (2016) , the role of primary information on importance of the last information in decision making tohidi moghadam.
-Tweedale, J. W. (2014). A review of cognitive decision-making within future mission systems. Procedia Computer Science, 35, 1043-1052.
-Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124-31.
-Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59 (4), 251–79.
-Wang, Y., & Ruhe, G. (2007). The cognitive process of decision making.
-Wallach W. Cognitive models of moral decision making. Topics in Cognitive Science. 2010;2(3):420-9.
-Walsh, D., Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211.
-Weaver, E. A., & Stewart, T. R. (2012). Dimensions of judgment: Factor analysis of individual differences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 402-413.
-Zimmer, L. (2006). Qualitative meta synthesis: a question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(3), 311–318.