At 08:23 AM 1/24/2007, Maarten Sierhuis wrote:
>Goal-based activities :-)
>
>
>Doei ... MXS
>
>On Jan 24, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Alan Penn wrote:
>
>>As with all binary divides there is a real risk that I am missing
>>an alternative and much more persuasive position that somehow
>>manages to achieve the best of both worlds - can anyone tell me
>>what it would be?
Within the decision psychology literature, Beach and Mitchell's Image
Theory (1996) could also provide a useful framework. Image Theory
assumes that decision makers use three different schematic knowledge
structures to organize their thinking about decisions.
* Value images consist of the decision maker's principles
(criteria for rightness or wrongness.)
* Trajectory images consist of previously adopted goals and
convey the decision maker's vision of the ideal future.
* Strategic images are the various plans which have been adopted
for achieving the goals on the trajectory image.
The strategy selected for a particular decision making task depends
on three variables:
* Choice characteristics (e.g., choice unfamiliarity, ambiguity,
complexity, and instability)
* Environment characteristics (e.g., irreversability, whether
choice may be made iteratively/incrementally, significance,
accountability for unacceptable outcomes, and time/money constraints)
* Decision maker characteristics (e.g., knowledge of different
choice strategies; ability to use strategies; motivation to spend the
minimum time, effort, and money while still making an acceptable choice.)
Image Theory makes certain observations about how human agents use
information to arrive at decisions. In particular, option screening
and choice selection are distinctly different cognitive processes
with different information requirements. Experimental studies
indicate that information used in option screening is seldom reused
during final choice. In one study (Beach & Strom, 1989) subjects were
asked to screen apartments; once they had selected a finalist, they
were informed that their selected choice was no longer available.
Subjects overwhelmingly preferred to start all over with an entirely
new set of options rather than rescreen the previously rejected options.
This points up another risk of the etic perspective: constructing
agents that are too rational!
-----
Brent Zenobia
Instructor
Dept. of Engineering and Technology Management
Portland State University
