Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Beyond expected utility: rethinking behavioral decision research

D Frisch1, R T Clemen

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene 97403.

Psychological Bulletin
|July 1, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Effects of single moor baths on physiological stress response and psychological state: a pilot study.

International journal of biometeorology·2017
Same author

Erratum: Results of a Survey of Insurance Holders on Cure Regimes Performed in Foreign European Countries.

Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))·2015
Same author

[Results of a Survey of Insurance Holders on Cure Regimes Performed in Foreign European Countries].

Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))·2015
Same author

The clinical utility index as a practical multiattribute approach to drug development decisions.

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics·2009
Same author

Analysis of colorectal cancer screening regimens.

Health care management science·2001
Same author

A framework for sequencing the rice genome.

Novartis Foundation symposium·2001
Same journal

Artificial intelligence as a partner in meta-analysis-Research agenda, user recommendations, and speed-accuracy tradeoffs: Commentary on Jansen et al. (2025).

Psychological bulletin·2026
Same journal

Relationships between cognition and daily functioning in adults with bipolar disorder: A systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis.

Psychological bulletin·2026
Same journal

The association between reading anxiety and reading achievement: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Psychological bulletin·2026
Same journal

Perfectionism is accelerating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analytic review of 35 years of college student data.

Psychological bulletin·2026
Same journal

High math anxiety is associated with lower math achievement across 90 countries: An individual participant data meta-analysis of representative student and adult samples.

Psychological bulletin·2026
Same journal

Is thinking inherently unpleasant? A cautionary note on David, Vassena, and Bijleveld (2024).

Psychological bulletin·2026
See all related articles

This study argues against using subjective expected utility (SEU) theory to judge decision quality in psychology. It proposes focusing on decision processes that lead to better outcomes instead.

Area of Science:

  • Decision Science
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Behavioral Economics

Background:

  • Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) theory is frequently used in psychology to evaluate decision-making quality.
  • The normative status of SEU theory is questioned as a justification for its use as a standard in psychological research.
  • Existing frameworks may not adequately capture the nuances of real-world decision processes.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critique the application of Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) theory as a normative standard in psychological decision research.
  • To propose an alternative framework for evaluating decision quality based on the decision-making process.
  • To identify key components of effective decision-making processes.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of the normative basis of utility theory in psychology.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of existing psychological research on decision-making processes.
  • Argumentation for a process-oriented approach to decision quality assessment.

    • Main Results:

    • Arguments supporting SEU theory as a normative standard are insufficient for its use in evaluating psychological decision quality.
    • A shift towards evaluating the quality of decision-making processes is advocated.
    • Key elements of a robust decision process include evaluating consequences, identifying relevant factors, and the final choice mechanism.

    Conclusions:

    • Psychologists should move beyond SEU theory for evaluating decision quality.
    • Focusing on the decision-making process itself offers a more practical and valid approach.
    • Future research should investigate processes that reliably lead to desirable decision outcomes.