Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences.

Although pleasure played a central role in early theories of decision making, it gradually became peripheral, largely because of measurement concerns. Normative theories became more mathematical, and descriptive theories emphasized cognition over emotion. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in emotions and choice. This article examines attempts to model pleasure and pain in terms of utilities, decision weights, and counterfactual comparisons. Research on disappointment and regret has provided both empirical and theoretical insights. Many researchers now realize that the predictability of the emotions that follow from decisions is as important as the predictability of choice.

Judgment and decision making.

For many decades, research in judgment and decision making has examined behavioral violations of rational choice theory. In that framework, rationality is expressed as a single correct decision shared by experimenters and subjects that satisfies internal coherence within a set of preferences and beliefs. Outside of psychology, social scientists are now debating the need to modify rational choice theory with behavioral assumptions. Within psychology, researchers are debating assumptions about errors for many different definitions of rationality. Alternative frameworks are being proposed. These frameworks view decisions as more reasonable and adaptive that previously thought. For example, "rule following." Rule following, which occurs when a rule or norm is applied to a situation, often minimizes effort and provides satisfying solutions that are "good enough," though not necessarily the best. When rules are ambiguous, people look for reasons to guide their decisions. They may also let their emotions take charge. This chapter presents recent research on judgment and decision making from traditional and alternative frameworks.

Judgments of proportions.

This study investigated the processes that underlie estimates of relative frequency. Ss performed 4 tasks using the same stimuli (squares containing black and white dots); they judged "percentages" of white dots, "percentages" of black dots, "ratios" of black dots to white dots, and "differences" between the number of black and white dots. Results were consistent with the theory that Ss used the instructed operations with the same scale values in all tasks. Despite the use of the correct operation, Ss consistently overestimated small proportions and underestimated large proportions. Variations in the distributions of actual proportions affected the extent to which Ss overestimated small proportions and underestimated large proportions in the direction predicted by range-frequency theory. Results suggest that proportion judgments, and by analogy probability judgments, should not be taken at face value.

Weight of evidence supports one operation for "ratios" and "differences" of heaviness.

This paper investigates an apparent contradiction between recent studies of "ratios" and "differences" of heaviness. Birnbaum and Veit (1974) found a single rank order for judgments in the two tasks, whereas Rule, Curtis, and Mullin (1981), who used a different stimulus set, procedure, and experimental design, reported two orders. To investigate the cause of this discrepancy, the present study manipulated the experimental design using the same stimuli and procedure as Rule et al. (1981). In one experiment (within-subject designs), each subject judged all combinations of the standard and comparison stimulus; in the other experiment (between-subjects designs) each subject received only one standard, and different groups of subjects were given different standards. "Ratios" and "differences" of heaviness were monotonically related for the majority of subjects who judged all combinations of standards and comparisons. Variations in the modulus and response examples did not affect the rank order of "ratios" within subjects. These results suggest that the contradiction in results is due to the difference in experimental design rather than differences in stimuli or procedure. In the between-subjects designs, the rank order of the "ratio" judgments depended on the standards and examples. Both previous and present results are consistent with the theory that subjects use one operation, subtraction, for both tasks and that the judgment function varies with between-subjects manipulations of the standard, examples, and modulus.

Loci of contextual effects in judgment.

Three experiments investigated the loci of contextual effects in judgment. Experiment 1 demonstrated the effect of stimulus spacing on category ratings and magnitude estimations of the darkness of dot patterns. Variations in the stimulus spacing were shown to affect both category ratings and magnitude estimations in a similar fashion. Experiment 2 was designed to determine whether contextual effects due to stimulus spacing influence the scale values or the judgment function. Subjects judged "differences" and "ratios" of the subjective darkness of dot patterns. Differences in mean judgments of single stimuli from Experiment 1 did not predict the rank order of judged "differences" and "ratios" from Experiment 2. The estimated scale values of the stimuli appeared to be independent of stimulus spacing. These findings suggest that contextual effects due to the stimulus spacing occur in the judgment function for within-modality judgments. Experiment 3 examined contextual effects in cross-modality judgments. Stimulus spacing and stimulus range were manipulated for "difference" and "total" judgments. Unlike the within-modality results, the stimulus range and spacing influenced the scale values. A contextual theory of within- and cross-modality judgment is presented.