title: A canonical theory of dynamic decision-making.
abstract: Decision-making behavior is studied in many very different fields, from medicine and economics to psychology and neuroscience, with major contributions from mathematics and statistics, computer science, AI, and other technical disciplines. However the conceptualization of what decision-making is and methods for studying it vary greatly and this has resulted in fragmentation of the field. A theory that can accommodate various perspectives may facilitate interdisciplinary working. We present such a theory in which decision-making is articulated as a set of canonical functions that are sufficiently general to accommodate diverse viewpoints, yet sufficiently precise that they can be instantiated in different ways for specific theoretical or practical purposes. The canons cover the whole decision cycle, from the framing of a decision based on the goals, beliefs, and background knowledge of the decision-maker to the formulation of decision options, establishing preferences over them, and making commitments. Commitments can lead to the initiation of new decisions and any step in the cycle can incorporate reasoning about previous decisions and the rationales for them, and lead to revising or abandoning existing commitments. The theory situates decision-making with respect to other high-level cognitive capabilities like problem solving, planning, and collaborative decision-making. The canonical approach is assessed in three domains: cognitive and neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, and decision engineering.
authors.affiliation: Oxford University Oxford, UK ; University College London London, UK.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Fox
authors.forename: Richard P
authors.initials: RP
authors.lastname: Cooper
authors.forename: David W
authors.initials: DW
authors.lastname: Glasspool
keywords: autonomous agents; clinical decision-making; cognitive systems; decision-making; unified theories of cognition
references.citation: Proc AMIA Symp. 2001;:662-6
references.pmid: 11825268
references.citation: Cortex. 2006 Apr;42(3):323-31
references.pmid: 16771037
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2008 Jul 07;2(1):79-85
references.pmid: 18982110
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(4):388-402
references.pmid: 10683390
references.citation: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Sep-Oct;10(5):433-43
references.pmid: 12807812
references.citation: BMJ Open. 2012 Jun 25;2(3):
references.pmid: 22734113
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):727-41; discussion 742-80
references.pmid: 11301545
references.citation: Neural Comput. 2008 Apr;20(4):873-922
references.pmid: 18085991
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1992 Dec;81(3):211-41
references.pmid: 1462786
references.citation: Artif Intell Med. 1993 Oct;5(5):415-30
references.pmid: 8004142
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 May 6;31(3):509-33
references.pmid: 21635306
references.citation: Cognition. 1993 Oct-Nov;49(1-2):11-36
references.pmid: 8287671
references.citation: Cognition. 1993 Oct-Nov;49(1-2):123-63
references.pmid: 8287672
references.citation: Hum Factors. 2008 Jun;50(3):456-60
references.pmid: 18689053
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1996 Oct 29;351(1346):1405-11; discussion 1411-2
references.pmid: 8941952
references.citation: Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31
references.pmid: 17835457
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2011 Apr;34(2):57-74; discussion 74-111
references.pmid: 21447233
references.citation: J Biomed Inform. 2010 Oct;43(5):831-43
references.pmid: 20601124