Two types of decision-making processes have been identified in the literature: an analytical process and an intuitive process. One conceptual model of the latter is the recognition-primed decision (RPD) model (e.g., Klein, 2008). According to this model, decision making in naturalistic contexts entails a situational pattern-recognition process that, if subsequent expectancies are confirmed, leads the decision maker to render a decision to engage in a given course of action. In this paper, we describe a system dynamics model of Klein's RPD framework that focuses upon the dynamics of the decision-making process. The structure of our RPD model is based on a model of a set of laboratory phenomena called conjunction benefits and costs (e.g., L. R. Fournier, Patterson, Dyre, Wiediger, & Winters, 2007), which was extended to encompass the RPD framework. The results of our simulations suggest that decision priming (a bias toward rendering a given decision based on prior information) is a phenomenon that should occur in many naturalistic settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
2.
BrownS.HeathcoteA.(2005).A ballistic model of choice response timePsychological Review, 112, 117–128
3.
BusemeyerJ. R.TownsendJ. T.(1993).Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environmentPsychological Review, 100, 432–459
4.
CalderwoodR.KleinG. A.CrandallB. W.(1988).Time pressure, skill, and move quality in chessAmerican Journal of Psychology, 101, 481–493
5.
ChaseW. G.SimonH. A.(1973a).The mind's eye in chess In
ChaseW. G. (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic Press
6.
ChaseW. G.SimonH. A.(1973b).Perception in chessCognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81
7.
DitterichJ.(2006).Evidence for time-variant decision makingEuropean Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 3628–3641
8.
EvansJ. S. B. T.(1984).Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoningBritish Journal of Psychology, 75, 451–468
9.
EvansJ. S. B. T.(2003).In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoningTrends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 454–459
10.
EvansJ. S. B. T.(2008).Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognitionAnnual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278
11.
12.
13.
FournierL. R.BowdC.HerbertR. J.(2000).Interference from multi-dimensional objects during feature and conjunction discriminationsQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 191–209
14.
FournierL. R.EriksenC. W.BowdC.(1998).Multiple feature discrimination faster than single feature discrimination within the same object?Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 1384–1405
15.
FournierL. R.HerbertR. J.FarrisC.(2004).Demands on attention and the role of response priming in visual discrimination of feature conjunctionsJournal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 836–852
16.
FournierL. R.PattersonR.DyreB. P.WiedigerM.WintersR.(2007).Conjunction benefits and costs reveal decision priming for first-order and second-order featuresPerception and Psychophysics, 69, 1409–1421
17.
FournierL. R.ScheffersM. K.ColesM. G. H.AdamsonA.VilaE.(2000).When complexity helps: An electrophysiological analysis of multiple feature benefits in object perceptionActa Psychologica, 104, 119–142
18.
19.
HammondK. R.HammR. M.GrassiaJ.PearsonT.(1997).Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment In
GoldsteinW. M.HogarthR. M. (Eds.), Research on judgment and decision making: Currents, connections and controversies (pp. 144–180). New York: Cambridge University Press
20.
21.
HogarthR.(2005).Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought In
BetschT.HaberstrohS. (Eds.), The routines of decision making (pp. 67–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
22.
KahnemanD.FrederickS.(2002).Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment In
GilovichT.GriffinD.KahnemanD. (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York: Cambridge University Press
KleinG. A.WolfS.MilitelloL.ZsambokC.(1995).Characteristics of skilled option generation in chessOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 63–69
28.
KrokhmalP.MurpheyR.PardalosP. M.UryasevS.ZrazhevskyG.(2003).Robust decision making: Addressing uncertainties in distributions In
ButenkoS.MurpheyR.PardalosP. M. (Eds.), Cooperative control: Models, applications and algorithms (pp. 165–185). New York: Kluwer Academic
29.
LopesL. L.OdenG. C.(1991).The rationality of intelligence In
EellsE.MaruszewskiT. (Eds.), Probability and rationality: Studies of L. Jonathan Cohen's philosophy of science (pp. 199–223). Amsterdam: Rodopi
30.
MeyerD. E.YantisS.OsmanA. M.SmithJ. E.(1985).Temporal properties of human information processing: Tests of discrete versus continuous modelsCognitive Psychology, 17, 445–518
31.
MitchellL.FlinR.(2007)Decisions to shoot by police officersJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 1, 375–390
32.
MuellerS. T.(2009).A Bayesian recognitional decision modelJournal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 3, 111–130
33.
RatcliffR.(1978).A theory of memory retrievalPsychological Review, 85, 59–108
34.
RatcliffR.(2001).Diffusion and random walk processes In
SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 3668–3673). Oxford, UK: Elsevier
35.
ReberA.(1989).Implicit learning and tacit knowledgeJournal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219–235
36.
ReganH. M.Ben-HaimY.LangfordB.WilsonW. G.LundbergP.AndelmanS. J.(2005).Robust decision-making under severe uncertainty for conservation managementEcological Applications, 15, 1471–1477
37.
SlomanS. A.(1996).The empirical case for two systems of reasoningPsychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22
38.
SmithP. L.VickersD.(1988).The accumulator model of two-choice discriminationJournal of Mathematical Psychology, 32, 135–168
39.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.(2000).Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debateBehavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665
40.
41.
TownsendJ. T.WengerM. J.(2004).A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality seriesPsychological Review, 111, 1003–1035
42.
43.
UsherM.McClellandJ. L.(2001).The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator modelPsychological Review, 108, 550–592
44.
WarwickW.McIlwaineS.HuttonR. J. B.McDermottP.(2001, May).Developing computational models of recognition-primed decision making. Paper presented at the Tenth Conference on Computer Generated Forces, Norfolk, VA
45.
WinterbottomM.PattersonR.FournierL.PierceB. P.WilliamsL.AmannR.(2009).Decision priming in an air-to-ground attack decision scenario In Proceedings of the NDM9 – 9th Bi-annual International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making (pp. 318–319). London, UK: British Computer Society
