Abstract
Expected utility theory, and the Bayesian probability theory on which it is based, form the normative basis of most work in medical decision analysis. Recent work in the psychology of judgments and decisions indicates that people do not conform to the axioms of this theory and that these deviations occur in clinical reasoning as well as in the psychology laboratory. At issue is what to do now. The authors argue that the important next steps lie at the interface between descriptive, prescriptive, and normative accounts, all of which affect each other. They point to examples in which the simplest application of supposedly normative theory seems inappropriate, and suggest ways in which the tension between normative and descriptive models may be resolved.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
