9 - Decision analysis from a neo-Calvinist point of view  pp. 216-233

Decision analysis from a neo-Calvinist point of view

By Drazen Prelec

Image View Previous Chapter Previous Chapter



By neo-Calvinist point of view, I refer to analysis focused on assessing the diagnostic significance of policy decisions, rather than establishing the direct consequences of decisions. Diagnostic significance refers to information revealed by an irrevocable act, information about some underlying collective value or belief. Decisions, especially those that break with precedent, can expose the tradeoffs between competing values, tradeoffs that society tacitly endorses. In these situations, the role of analysis might be not so much to recommend a course of action, but to clarify what is at stake, the ‘diagnostic risk’ as it were, created by the choice.

Here I outline a simple framework for how this analysis might proceed. The core ideas are taken from an earlier self-signalling model of choice (Bodner and Prelec, 2003; Prelec and Bodner, 2003). That model postulated a distinction between two types of utility: utility that flows directly from the causal consequences of choice, and diagnostic utility, which is the pleasure or pain derived from learning something positive or negative about one’s own internal state, disposition, ability or future prospects. People are presumed to be chronically uncertain about where they stand with respect to these broad attributes, which in turn makes their choices diagnostic. Anticipation of diagnostic reward, or fear of diagnostic pain, promotes self-control and inhibits self-indulgence.

Ainslie, G . (1992). Picoeconomics: The Strategic Interaction of Successive Motivational States Within the Person. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bem, D. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–62.
Benabou, R. and Tirole, J. (2004). Willpower and Personal Rules. Journal of Political Economy 112: 848–87.
Bernheim, B. and Thomadsen, R. (2005). Memory and Anticipation. Economic Journal 115: 271–304.
Bodner, R. and Prelec, D. (2003). Self-Signalling and Diagnostic Utility in Everyday Decision-Making. In I. Brocas and J. Carillo (eds.), Psychology of Economic Decisions, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, pp. 105–24.
Cho, I. and Sobel, J. (1990). Strategic Stability and Uniqueness in Signaling Games. Journal of Economic Theory 50: 381–413.
Ginossar, Z. and Trope, Y. (1987). Problem Solving in Judgment under Uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 464–74.
Mijovic-Prelec, D. and Prelec, D . (2010). Self-Deception as Self-Signaling: A Model and Experimental Evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biology 365: 227–40.
Monterosso, J. R. and Ainslie, G. (1999). Beyond Discounting: Possible Experimental Models of Impulse Control. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 146: 339–47.
Prelec, D. and Bodner, R. (2003). Self-Signaling and Self-Control. In G. Loewenstein , D. Read and R. F. Baumeister (eds.), Time and Decision. New York: Russell Sage, pp. 277–98.
Quattrone, G. and Tversky, A. (1984). Causal versus Diagnostic Contingencies: On Self-Deception and on the Voter’s Illusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 237–48.
Sanitioso, R. , Kunda, Z. and Fong, G. T. (1990). Motivated Recruitment of Autobiographical Memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 229–41.
Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. P. Baehr and G. C. Wells . Penguin Books.