Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:39:08.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of institutions on the decision how to decide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2007

CHRISTOPH ENGEL  and
ELKE U. WEBER
CHRISTOPH ENGEL*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany and Columbia University, Business School, New York City, USA
ELKE U. WEBER
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany and Columbia University, Business School, New York City, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Email: engel@coll.mpg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Institutions influence and shape behaviour. This paper suggests one way in which they do so that has been largely overlooked in institutional analysis and design. When faced with a decision or problem, people have more than one mechanism at their disposition for addressing it. The human mind offers multiple tools, ranging from conscious deliberation to spontaneous, affective reactions. Relying on technology or experts, decision-makers can also muster additional resources. Often, the meta-choice of which decision-making or problem-solving mode is used has an impact on the output. Some normative goals are more likely met if the decision-maker uses a specific problem-solving mode. We argue that the meta-choice of which problem-solving mode to use for a given decision can be influenced by institutions. In the interest of defining access points for institutions, we develop a conceptual framework for the selection and implementation of decision-making and problem-solving modes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , December 2007 , pp. 323 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © The JOIE Foundation 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. 2000, Learning and Memory. An Integrated Approach, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Arkes, H. R. 1991, ‘Costs and Benefits of Judgment Errors – Implications for Debiasing’, Psychological Bulletin, 110: 486–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, R. H. 1992, ‘Effects of Justification and a Mechanical Aid on Judgment Performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52: 292–306.Google Scholar
Ayres, C. E. 1944, The Theory of Economic Progress, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. 1932, Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Battaglini, M., Benabou, R., and Tirole, J. 2002, Self Control in Peer Groups, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=298448.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. 1962, ‘Irrational Behaviour and Economic Theory’, Journal of Political Economy, 70: 1–13.Google Scholar
Berger, L. A. 1989, ‘Economics and Hermeneutics’, Economics and Philosophy, 5: 209–233.Google Scholar
Bishop, K. 2001, ‘Working Smart and Working Hard: The Effects of Entrepreneurial Multi-tasking and Intuitive Activities on Venture Performance’, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61 (9-A): 3645.Google Scholar
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., and Engel, J. F. 2006, Consumer Behavior, Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.Google Scholar
Blatt, J. M. 1979, ‘The Utility of Being Hanged on the Gallows’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2: 231–239.Google Scholar
Bohner, G. 2001, ‘Attitudes’, in Hewstone, Miles and Stroebe, Wolfgang (eds), Introduction to Social Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 239–282.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., and Rabin, M. 2003, ‘Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism”’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151: 1211–1254.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. 1999, Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Collins, A. M. and Loftus, E. F. 1975, ‘A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing’, Psychological Review, 82: 407–428.Google Scholar
Corrado, M. L. 1999, ‘Addiction and Responsibility: An Introduction’, Law and Philosophy, 18: 579–588.Google Scholar
Cvetkovich, G. 1978, ‘Cognitive Accommodation, Language, and Social Responsibility’, Social Psychology, 41: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. 2000, The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, San Diego, CA: Harvest.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1922, Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology, New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1933, How We Think, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. 1998, ‘The New Institutionalisms: Avenues of Collaboration’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 154: 696–705.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1991, ‘Introduction’, in Powell, Walter W. and DiMaggio, Paul J. (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
Dopfer, K., Foster, J. and Potts, J. 2004, ‘Micro – Meso – Macro’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14: 263–279.Google Scholar
Dworkin, G. 2005, Paternalism http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/paternalism/.Google Scholar
Earl, P. E. 1983, ‘The Consumer in his/her Social Setting – a Subjectivist View’, in Wiseman, Jack (ed.), Beyond Positive Economics?, Houndmills: MacMillan, pp. 176–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, P. E. 2005, Behavioral Economics and the Economics of Regulation eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00003308/.Google Scholar
Earl, P. E. and Wakeley, T. 2005, Business Economics: A Contemporary Approach, London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Engel, C. 2005, Generating Predictability: Institutional Analysis and Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engel, C. 2006, ‘Social Dilemmas Revisited from a Heuristics Perspective’, in Gigerenzer, Gerd and Engel, Christoph (eds), Heuristics and the Law, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 61–85.Google Scholar
Engel, C. and Schweizer, U. 2002, ‘Organising and Designing Markets’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 158: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. 1994, ‘Integration of the Cognitive and the Psychodynamic Unconscious’, American Psychologist, 49: 709–724.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T. and Over, D. E. 1997, ‘Are People Rational? Yes, No, and Sometimes’, Psychologist: 403–406.Google Scholar
Foster, J. F. 1981, ‘Effect of Technology on Institutions’, Journal of Economic Issues, 15: 907–914.Google Scholar
Gehlen, A. 1960, ‘Mensch und Institutionen’, in Gehlen, Arnold (ed.), Anthropologische Forschung: Zur Selbstbegegnung und Selbstentdeckung des Menschen, Hamburg: Rowohlt, pp. 69–77.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Engel, C. (eds) 2006, Heuristics and the Law, Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds) 2001, Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and ABC Research Group 1999, Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W. M. and Hogarth, R. M. 1997, ‘Judgment and Decision Research. Some Historical Context’, in Goldstein, William M. and Hogarth, Robin M. (eds), Research on Judgement and Decision Making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W. M. and Weber, E. U. 1997, ‘Content and Discontent. Indications and Implications of Domain Specificity in Preferential Decision Making’, in Goldstein, William M. and Hogarth, Robin M. (eds), Research in Judgement and Decision Making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 566–617.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P. M. and Schaal, B. 1998, ‘Metacognition in Action: The Importance of Implementation Intentions’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 124–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, K. and Nilsson, J. E. 1997, ‘Gradgrind's Education: Using Dickens and Aristotle to Understand (and Replace?) the Business Judgement Rule’, Brooklyn Law Review, 63: 799–859.Google Scholar
Hagafors, R. and Brehmer, B. 1983, ‘Does Having to Justify one's Judgments Change the Nature of the Judgment Process?’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 31: 223–232.Google Scholar
Hall, P. and Taylor, R. C. R. 1996, ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies, 44: 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, J. D. and Kysar, D. A. 1999a, ‘Taking Behavioralism Seriously: Some Evidence of Market Manipulation’, Harvard Law Review, 112: 1420–1572.Google Scholar
Hanson, J. D. and Kysar, D. A. 1999b, ‘Taking Behavioralism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation’, New York University Law Review, 74: 630–749.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. and Boyd, R. 2005, ‘“Economic Man” in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28: 795–815.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 1988, Economics and Institutions: A Manifesto for a Modern Institutional Economics, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 2004a, The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 2004b, ‘Reclaiming Habit for Institutional Economics’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 25: 651–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 2006, ‘What Are Institutions?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 40: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E. and Spitzer, M. L. 1985, ‘Entitlements, Rights, and Fairness: An Experimental Examination of Subject's Concepts of Distributive Justice’, Journal of Legal Studies, 14: 259–297.Google Scholar
Hogarth, R. M., Gibbs, B. J., McKenzie, C. R. M., and Marquis, M. A. 1997, ‘Learning from Feedback. Exactingness and Incentives’, in Goldstein, William M. and Hogarth, Robin M. (eds), Research on Judgement and Decision Making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–284.Google Scholar
James, W. 1893, Psychology: Briefer Course, New York: H. Holt.Google Scholar
Jankowiak, W. 2005, ‘Market Integration, Cognitive Awareness, and the Expansion of Moral Empathy’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28: 826–827.Google Scholar
Joas, H. 1993, Pragmatism and Social Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jolls, C. and Sunstein, C. R. 2006, ‘Debiasing Through Law’, Journal of Legal Studies, 35: 199–241.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1936, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Klein, G. 1998, Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Knight, J. 1992, Institutions and Social Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koppl, R. and Whitman, D. G. 2004, ‘Rational-choice Hermeneutics’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55: 295–317.Google Scholar
Laaksonen, P. 1994, Consumer Involvement: Concepts and Research, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Langerock, H. 1915, ‘Professionalism: A Study in Professional Deformation’, American Journal of Sociology, 21: 30–44.Google Scholar
Lawson, T. 2003, Reorienting Economics, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., and Tetlock, P. E. 1998, ‘Sober Second Thought: The Effects of Accountability, Anger, and Authoritarianism on Attributions of Responsibility’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 563–574.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S. and Tetlock, P. E. 1999, ‘Accounting for the Effects of Accountability’, Psychological Bulletin, 125: 255–275.Google Scholar
Loasby, B. J. 1976, Choice, Complexity and Ignorance: An Enquiry into Economic Theory and the Practice of Decision-making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mantzavinos, C. 2001, Individuals, Institutions, and Markets, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Heath, C. 1994, A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, H. 1990, Patterns, Thinking, and Cognition: A Theory of Judgment, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Maule, A. J., Hockey, G. R., and Bdzola, L. 2000, ‘Effects of Time-Pressure on Decision-making under Uncertainty: Changes in Affective States and Information Processing Strategy’, Acta Psychologica, 104: 283–301.Google Scholar
May, J. V. and Wildavsky, A. B. 1978, The Policy Cycle, Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Mayntz, R. 1980, Implementation politischer Programme: Empirische Forschungsberichte, Königstein/Ts.: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Meadow, W. and Sunstein, C. R. 2001, ‘Statistics, not Experts’, Duke Law Journal, 51: 629–646.Google Scholar
Nee, V. 1998, ‘Sources of the New Institutionalism’, in Brinton, Mary C. and Nee, Victor (eds), The New Institutionalism in Sociology, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
North, D. C. 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oaksford, M. and Chater, N. 1994, ‘A Rational Analysis of the Selection Task as Optimal Data Selection’, Psychological Review, 101: 608–631.Google Scholar
Ölander, F. and Thogersen, J. 1995, ‘Understanding of Consumer Behaviour as a Prerequisite for Environmental Protection’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 18: 345–385.Google Scholar
Olshavsky, R. W. and Granbois, D. H. 1979, ‘Consumer Decision Making – Fact or Fiction?’, Journal of Consumer Research, 6: 93–100.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 2005, Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, K. and Walls, M. 1999, Extended Producer Responsibility: An Economic Assessment of Alternative Policies, www.rff.org/documents/RFF_DP-99-12.pdfGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. 1988, ‘Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14: 534–552.Google Scholar
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., and Johnson, E. J. 1993, The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pelham, B. and Neter, E. 1995, ‘The Effect of Motivation on Judgment Depends on the Difficulty of the Judgment’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, B. G. 1999, Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Plott, C. R. 1986, ‘Rational Choice in Experimental Markets’, in Hogarth, Robin M. and Reder, Melvin W. (eds), Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, pp. 117–144.Google Scholar
Prelec, D. and Herrnstein, R. J. 1991, ‘Preferences or Principles: Alternative Guidelines for Choice’, in Zeckhauser, Richard (ed.), Strategy and Choice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 319–340.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1994, Institutions in Economics: The Old and the New Institutionalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977, Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1965, The Shape of Automation for Men and Management, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1986, ‘Decision Making and Problem Solving’, in National Academy of Sciences (ed.), Report of the Research Briefing Panel on Decision Making and Problem Solving, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1990, ‘Invariants of Human Behavior’, Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 1–19.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. 1989, ‘Theory, Experiment and Economics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3: 151–169.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. 1991, ‘Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology’, Journal of Political Economy, 99: 877–897.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. 1994, ‘Economics in the Laboratory’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8: 112–131.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. and West, R. F. 2000, ‘Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23: 645–665.Google Scholar
Strack, F. and Deutsch, R. 2004, ‘Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behaviour’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8: 220–247.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. 1983a, ‘Accountability and Complexity of Thought’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 74–83.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. 1983b, ‘Accountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 46: 285–292.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Boettger, R. 1989, ‘Accountability: A Social Magnifier of the Dilution Effect’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 388–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tobin, J. 1996, ‘Prologue’, in Haq, Mahbub ul, Kaul, Inge, and Grunberg, Isabelle (eds), The Tobin Tax: Coping with Financial Volatility, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. ix–xviii.Google Scholar
Tool, M. R. 1979, The Discretionary Economy: A Normative Theory of Political Economy, Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Tool, M. R. and Bush, P. D. 2003, Institutional Analysis and Economic Policy, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanberg, V. 2002, ‘Rational Choice vs. Program-Based Behavior: Alternative Theoretical Approaches and their Relevance for the Study of Institutions’, Rationality and Society, 14: 7–54.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. 1898, ‘Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12: 373–397.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. 1998, ‘From Shakespeare to Spielberg: Predicting Modes of Decision Making’, Presidential Address, Annual Meeting of the Society for Judgement and Decision Making, Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Ames, D. R., and Blais, A.-R. 2004, ‘“How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways”: A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States’, Management and Organization Review, 1: 87–118.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Hsee, C. K. 2000, ‘Culture and Individual Decision Making’, Applied Psychology, 49: 32–61.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Lindemann, P. G. 2007, ‘From Intuition to Analysis: Making Decisions with Your Head, Your Heart, or by the Book’, in Plessner, Helmuth, Betsch, Claudia, and Betsch, Tilmann (eds), Intuition in Judgement and Decision Making, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlenbaum.Google Scholar
Weldon, E. and Gargano, G. M. 1988, ‘Cognitive Loafing: The Effects of Accountability and Shared Responsibility on Cognitive Effort’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14: 159–171.Google Scholar
Winter, G. 1975, Das Vollzugsdefizit im Wasserrecht: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des Öffentlichen Rechts, Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar