Behavioral Decision Making in Normative and Descriptive Views: A Critical Review of Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies on decision analytics frequently refer to the topic of behavioral decision making (BDM), which focuses on behavioral components of decision analytics. This paper provides a critical review of literature for re-examining the relations between BDM and classical decision theories in both normative and descriptive reviews. We attempt to capture several milestones in theoretical models, elaborate on how the normative and descriptive theories blend into each other, thus motivating the mostly prescriptive models in decision analytics and eventually promoting the theoretical progress of BDM—an emerging and interdisciplinary field. We pay particular attention to the decision under uncertainty, including ambiguity aversion and models. Finally, we discuss the research directions for future studies by underpinning the theoretical linkages of BDM with fast-evolving research areas, including loss aversion, reference dependence, inequality aversion, and models of quasi-maximization mistakes. This paper helps to understand various behavioral biases and psychological factors when making decisions, for example, investment decisions. We expect that the results of this research can inspire studies on BDM and provide proposals for mechanisms for the development of D-TEA (decision—theory, experiments, and applications).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".