Search results

AbstractA review is presented of the development over the years of the theory and practical use of Markov decision processes. To this purpose three periods are considered: before 1966, from 1966 till 1972, and after 1973. In all 3 periods there has been some contribution from the Netherlands, but particularly in the last period the research in the Netherlands on the subject has become a major stream. In this review particular emphasis is given to the work which has been done in the Netherlands, but the main line of the paper is determined by the development of the applicability of the available theory.

This study explores group participants' bias toward reducing conflict in consensus ver sus majority decision styles. Recent research suggests that diminished disagreement seriously jeopardizes the quality of groups' final decisions. This study tests for conflict expectation differences between consensus and majority processes. A semantic differ ential questionnaire examines expectation ratings for consensus versus majority pro cesses. Results suggest that the participants expect climate in consensus process to be more agreeable and friendly than in majority process. Among subjects, MSWs showed greater confidence in consensus than in majority, but MBAs did not. In practice, both professions frequently engage in consensus group decision making. Implications of the findings suggest that consensus process might be governed by an "agreement norm" that has the potential to restrict disagreements needed to reach sound decisions.

Cost-benefit analysis have been attacked by many critics because of its implicit ethical assumptions. The normative content of the method is at odds with the common attitude that economists should analyze how to reach given goals, while determination of the goals should be left to the politicians. This paper presents a descriptive model of decision makers' behavior, demonstrating that rational, benevolent politicians will only in special cases accept the evaluation of projects resulting from a cost-benefit analysis. An alternative approach to project evaluation, which allows individual decision makers to rank projects in accordance with their own ethical views, is presented. In this framework, estimates of willingness to pay are generally not required. On the other hand, information about groups that are significantly affected by the project, as well as physical unit information on changes in the supply of public goods, is crucial.

We propose a model of addiction based on three premises: (i) use among addicts is frequently a mistake; (ii) experience sensitizes an individual to environmental cues that trigger mistaken usage; (iii) addicts understand and manage their susceptibilities. We argue that these premises find support in evidence from psychology, neuroscience, and clinical practice. The model is tractable and generates a plausible mapping between behavior and the characteristics of the user, substance, and environment. It accounts for a number of important patterns associated with addiction, gives rise to a clear welfare standard, and has novel implications for policy.

Four standards are proposed to assess instruments designed to evaluate group decision process effectiveness. These standards were applied to a multicriteria evaluative instrument based on the Competing Values Approach to decision process effectiveness. In a study using nine groups and three types of raters (facilitators, participants, and observers) in a field setting, the instrument was found to be appropriately insensitive to role differences between raters within groups and appropriately sensitive to differences across groups. Ratings of facilitators and participants within groups were the most consistent, although their ratings diverged on four of the effectiveness scales.