Drawing on research from multiple disciplines, goal-oriented decision making (GOD) explores decision making in action. It focuses on how people learn to make decisions related to setting and striving for goals, as well as how we manage both success and failure. In doing so, it seeks to explain what drives our decisions and targets an area of decision making that is often overlooked or ignored, the role of volition in transforming decisions into action. What follows defines GOD in terms of foundations, approaches to discovery, perceived value, and limitations.
FOUNDATIONS
GOD uses a phenomenological lens and draws heavily from the goal theory of motivation, naturalistic decision making, and social cognitive theory. A key proposition is that individuals are active agents, capable of intentionally influencing outcomes. GOD supports a volitional view of human decision making and by extension, human behavior. This does not deny the influence of mechanistic or deterministic factors outside of our direct control. It is only to assert that while many things may drive our decisions, our species has at least a degree of freedom in the decisions that we make, including the decision not to act.
GOD uses a phenomenological lens and draws heavily from the goal theory of motivation, naturalistic decision making, and social cognitive theory. A key proposition is that individuals are active agents, capable of intentionally influencing outcomes. GOD supports a volitional view of human decision making and by extension, human behavior. This does not deny the influence of mechanistic or deterministic factors outside of our direct control. It is only to assert that while many things may drive our decisions, our species has at least a degree of freedom in the decisions that we make, including the decision not to act.
|
“To be an agent is to exert intentional influence over one's functioning and over the course of events by one's actions…Human agency is manifested through forethought, self-reaction, and self-reflection. In forethought, people motivate and guide themselves by creating action plans, adopting goals and challenges, and visualizing the likely outcomes of their efforts. A future state has no material existence, so it cannot be a cause of current behavior acting purposefully for its own realization. But through cognitive representation, visualized futures are brought into the present as current guides and motivators of behavior. In this form of anticipatory self-guidance, behavior is governed by visualized goals and anticipated outcomes rather than being pulled by an unrealized future state. The ability to bring goals and anticipated consequences to bear on current activities promotes purposeful and foresightful behavior. Forethought enables people to transcend the dictates of their immediate environment and to shape and regulate the present to realize a desired future. When projected over a long-term course on matters of value, a forethoughtful perspective provides direction, coherence, and meaning to one's life.” - Albert Bandura
|
APPROACHES TO DISCOVERY
Another aspect of GOD is a focus on naturalistic or holistic approaches that frame discoveries in terms of how decisions and decision making are experienced under real world conditions. It examines how these experiences drive our decisions over time, influencing how we achieve goals. This approach is in contrast to reductionist methods that most often study “one-shot” or limited decision making under artificial conditions with predetermined “correct” or “normative” solutions.
PERCEIVED VALUE
GOD elevates humans to playing a more active rather than passive role in the decisions they make. It adds an affective, volitional component that is either absent or relegated to being a minor influence in many approaches to decision research. This is especially true of rational or mechanistic approaches, treating humans as advanced computer programs. Therefore, the real value added is in offering an alternative to those approaches, providing tools and strategies that incorporate "free will" as part of the decision process and subsequently the outcomes of those decisions.
LIMITATIONS
Given foundations and the approach taken, GOD is biased towards exploring explicit rather than implicit decisions and goals. While not ignored, there is less focus on any underlying mechanisms and what occurs below conscious awareness. In addition, given a focus on decisions oriented towards goal achievement, there is limited focus on decisions related to discrete judgments or preferences e.g., judging if painting A or B is more beautiful, or the preference for chocolate rather than strawberry ice cream. While these are also interesting aspects of decision making, it is not a primary focus. GOD is not an attempt to explain all decision making.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, GOD is a naturalistic approach to the study of decision making that focuses on how people learn to make decisions in support of their goals. This includes understanding what drives our decisions and includes a volitional element to bridge the gap between decision making and action.
Another aspect of GOD is a focus on naturalistic or holistic approaches that frame discoveries in terms of how decisions and decision making are experienced under real world conditions. It examines how these experiences drive our decisions over time, influencing how we achieve goals. This approach is in contrast to reductionist methods that most often study “one-shot” or limited decision making under artificial conditions with predetermined “correct” or “normative” solutions.
PERCEIVED VALUE
GOD elevates humans to playing a more active rather than passive role in the decisions they make. It adds an affective, volitional component that is either absent or relegated to being a minor influence in many approaches to decision research. This is especially true of rational or mechanistic approaches, treating humans as advanced computer programs. Therefore, the real value added is in offering an alternative to those approaches, providing tools and strategies that incorporate "free will" as part of the decision process and subsequently the outcomes of those decisions.
LIMITATIONS
Given foundations and the approach taken, GOD is biased towards exploring explicit rather than implicit decisions and goals. While not ignored, there is less focus on any underlying mechanisms and what occurs below conscious awareness. In addition, given a focus on decisions oriented towards goal achievement, there is limited focus on decisions related to discrete judgments or preferences e.g., judging if painting A or B is more beautiful, or the preference for chocolate rather than strawberry ice cream. While these are also interesting aspects of decision making, it is not a primary focus. GOD is not an attempt to explain all decision making.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, GOD is a naturalistic approach to the study of decision making that focuses on how people learn to make decisions in support of their goals. This includes understanding what drives our decisions and includes a volitional element to bridge the gap between decision making and action.
Goal-Oriented Decision Making and the A.P.E. Model
The APE model explores how we experience goal-oriented decision making. This includes the role of motivation and the experience of decision making in terms of how we assess, plan, and execute. The model also discusses how experience influences the use of intuition and deliberation.
SOURCES AND MATERIALS
To check out the research used in developing goal-oriented decision making (click here).
