More dead than dead: perceptions of persons in the persistent vegetative state

Patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) may be biologically alive, but these experiments indicate that people see PVS as a state curiously more dead than dead. Experiment 1 found that PVS patients were perceived to have less mental capacity than the dead. Experiment 2 explained this effect as an outgrowth of afterlife beliefs, and the tendency to focus on the bodies of PVS patients at the expense of their minds. Experiment 3 found that PVS is also perceived as “worse” than death: people deem early death better than being in PVS. These studies suggest that people perceive the minds of PVS patients as less valuable than those of the dead – ironically, this effect is especially robust for those high in religiosity.     

‘Protective donation’: When refusing a request for a donation increases the sense of vulnerability

May refusing a request for a donation be conceived as ‘tempting fate’? Do people feel more vulnerable when they do not comply with such a request? In this paper we examine the link between subjective perceptions of vulnerability and people's willingness to help address a threatening cause. Results of five studies, examining a real life situation, hypothetical scenarios and a controlled lab game with actual monetary costs and rewards, show first, that deliberately helping is positively correlated with the perceived likelihood of becoming a victim of the same misfortune. Second, we show that refusing to donate to a threatening misfortune increases sense of vulnerability. Both phenomena occur especially for people with strong belief in a just world, who believe in a causal relationship between people's behavior and their fortune (rewards and punishments).     

A multidimensional framework for financial–economic decisions

Most financial–economic decisions are made consciously, with a clear and constant drive to ‘good’, ‘better’ or even ‘optimal’ decisions. Nevertheless, many decisions in practice do not earn these qualifications, despite the availability of financial economic theory, decision sciences and ample resources. We plea for the development of a multidimensional framework to support financial economic decision processes. Our aim is to achieve a better integration of available theory and decision technologies. We sketch (a) what the framework should look like, (b) what elements of the framework already exist and which not, and (c) how the MCDA community can co‐operate in its development. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.