Mathematical Modeling and Process Description of Group Decision Making

规范性模型与描述性模型之间的冲突与解决一直是我们关注的问题。以群体决策为例，比较了几种数学集结规则和简单多数规则在群体决策中的效率。对于公共决策来说，衡量人们真实想法的方法论是非常重要的，我们探讨了通过语言表达来衡量主观可能性的方法的可能性，我们的感觉是，我们的日常决策旨在达到某种理性。从这一点出发，我们试图找到被试的典型反应的理由，这些反应通常被认为是错误的反应。更具体地说，我们做了三个研究工作，以调查这是如何影响主题的顺序反应的变化。一个是使用Wason的四张卡片问题的实验。我们发现，数学规范模型预测，当先验概率是小的，规则本身是概率，典型的“错误”的反应是合理的，虽然真实的受试者的数据并没有显示出明确的趋势，以满足这一规范的预测。此外，我们还发现，在被称为“秘书问题”的顺序决策任务中，受试者的反应变得更接近理性的解决方案。在第三个任务，达马西奥的“赌博任务”，它表明，无论是受试者接近规范的解决方案或不依赖于受试者的情绪反应，这是测量的皮肤电导反应。

Conflicts and resolutions between normative models and descriptive models have been our research concern. For example, some mathematical aggregation rule and simple majority rule were compared in terms of efficiency in the group decision-making situation. For public decision making, the methodology to measure what people actually have in mind is very important and we investigated the possibility to apply the method of measuring subjective probability by means of language expression.Our feeling is that our ordinary decision making purports to reach some kind of rationality. From this point, we tried to find the justification for the subjects' typical responses, which are often regarded as the wrong responses. More concretely, we made three research efforts to investigate how this affects subjects change in the sequential responses. One is the experiment using Wason's four card problem. We showed that mathematical normative model predicts that when the prior probability is small and the rule itself is probabilistic, typical "wrong" responses can be justified, although real subjects' data did not show the clear tendency to meet this normative prediction. Also, we showed that in the sequential decision making task known as the "secretary problem", subjects' responses became closer to the rational solution. In the third task, Damasio's "gamble task", it was shown that whether subjects approached the normative solution or not depended subjects emotional responses which was measured by skin conductance responses.