Group decision as a twice multicriteria optimum problem

This paper studies the problem of aggregation of preferences, preserving the multicriteria nature of the individual decision process. The resulting group decision problem is in effect a twice multicriteria optimum problem. We give a structural theory for the efficient set of this optimum problem. Moreover, on the basis of this theory we study the relationships between optimality, consensus and evaluation. We confirm the pathological nature of aggregation of preferences, but in a new setting and with a different meaning.     

Exploring subject positions in Greek migrants' discourse on mobility decisions

The current study explores the ways in which Greek migrants in their early adulthood position themselves in discourse on mobility decisions. For the purposes of the study, 17 virtual interviews with Greek migrants (aged between 25–40 years old) in European cities were conducted. Analysis, based on the principles of critical discursive social psychology, indicated that, in their accounts of migration decision-making, participants positioned themselves in various ways: as career/job seekers, as adventurers, as well as (personal or institutional/economic) crisis-ridden individuals. Multiple subject positions were constituted by an amalgam of rational/practical and affective repertoires which depicted migration as a multifaceted, dynamic and non-linear project. Analysis also highlighted the multiple spatial (transnational, national and local) and dynamic temporal constructions mobilized by participants, in order to construct their motivations for migrating. Discussion of findings suggests that social psychology (a) can vitally contribute to migration literature, by considering ways in which social actors position themselves by the use of historically and culturally specific resources and by their orientation to local interactional concerns in the context of accounting for their mobility and (b) can be benefited by considering spatial and temporal aspects in the analysis of migration.     

Do we make decisions for other people based on our predictions of their preferences? evidence from financial and medical scenarios involving risk

Abstract

The ways in which the decisions we make for others differ from the ones we make for ourselves has received much attention in the literature, although less is known about their relationship to our predictions of the recipient’s preferences. The latter question is of particular importance given real-world occurrences of surrogate decision-making which require surrogates to consider the recipient’s preferences. We conducted three experiments which explore this relationship in the medical and financial domains. Although there were mean discrepancies between surrogate predictions and choices, we identified a predictive relationship between the two. Moreover, when participants took high risks for themselves, it seems that they were not willing to do so for others, even when they believed that the recipient’s preferences were similar to their own. We discuss these findings relative to current theories and real-world instances of surrogate decision-making.