Decision theory and research have focused almost exclusively on choice—the selection of the best option from a choice set containing two or more options. Largely overlooked is the question of how those particular options got there in the first place—why them and not others? This article describes a theory, called image theory, about how prechoice screening of options governs the contents of the set from which a choice is made and summarizes empirical tests of the theory. The research results suggest that screening plays a far more important role in decision making than is generally appreciated and that our view of decision making must be broadened accordingly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeachL.R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, England: Wiley.
2.
BeachL.R.MitchellT.R. (1978). A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 439–449.
3.
BeachL.R.MitchellT.R. (1987). Image theory: Principles, goals and plans in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 66, 201–220.
4.
BeachL.R.MitchellT.R. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decisions in organizations. InStawB.M.CummingsL.L. (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp.1–41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
5.
BeachL.R.SmithB.LundellJ.MitchellT.R. (1988). Image theory: Descriptive sufficiency of a simple rule for the compatibility lest. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 17–28.
6.
BeachL.R.StromE. (1989). A toadstool among the mushrooms: Screening decisions and image theory's compatibility test. Acta Psychologica, 72, 1–12.
7.
MillerG.A.GalanterE.PribramK.H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
8.
OlshavskyR.W. (1979). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: A replication and extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 300–316.
9.
PayneJ.W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366–387.
10.
PayneJ.W.BettmanJ.R.JohnsonE.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
PotterR.E. (1991). When unacceptable options become unavailable: The effects of job role and organizational compromise (Technical Report No. 91–5). Tucson: University of Arizona, Department of Management and Policy.
12.
PotterR.E.BeachL.R. (in press-a). Decision making when the acceptable options become unavailable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making..
13.
PotterR.E.BeachL.R. (in press-b). Imperfect information in pre-choice screening of options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making..
14.
RaiffaH. (1968). Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. New York: Addison-Wesley.
15.
RedikerK.J.MitchellT.R.BeachL.R.BeardD.W. (1993). The effects of strong belief structures on information processing evaluations and choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 113–132.
16.
SvensonO. (1979). Process descriptions in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 86–112.
17.
TverskyA.ShafirE. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 6, 358–361.
18.
van ZeeE.H. (1989). Use of information in decision deliberation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle.
19.
van ZeeE.H.PaluchowskiT.F.BeachL.R. (1992). The effects of screening and task partitioning upon evaluations of decision options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 1–23.
