Year: 2007
Type: dissertation
Abstract: Attitudes toward four types of decision making strategies (clinical/fully-rational, clinical/heuristic, actuarial/fully-rational, and actuarial/heuristic) were examined. Participants (N = 80) were randomly split between a legal or medical decision making scenario and asked to judge, on a 7-point rating scale, each strategy in terms of (a) preference, (b) accuracy, (c) fairness, (d) ethicalness, and (e) similarity to how legal and medical professionals actually render decisions. Results showed that the clinical/fully-rational strategy was rated the highest across all attitudinal judgments, whereas the actuarial/heuristic strategy received the lowest ratings across all judgments. Considering the two strategy-differentiating factors separately, clinically-based strategies were always rated higher than actuarially-based strategies and fully-rational strategies were always rated higher than heuristic-based strategies. The potential implications of the results for professional decision makers and those affected by their decisions are discussed.
Author: Joseph Eastwood
Language: English
Subfield: General Decision Sciences
Field: Decision Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2096296502