Are Objections to Decision Theory also Objections to the Dual Process Theory of Action?
The dual-process theory of instrumental action postulates that,
among the processes guiding action selection, there is a goal-directed
process. This process is characterised in terms of two representations
and their interaction:
‘a representation of the causal relationship between the action and outcome’
and ‘a representation of the current incentive value, or utility, of the
outcome’ (Dickinson, 2016, p. 177;
see Instrumental Actions: Goal-Directed and Habitual).
What are these representations? And how does their interaction guide action?
As we saw in What Are Preferences?, it is tempting to appeal to
decision theory to answer both questions.
But, as we saw in An Objection to Decision Theory?, there are objections to
some consturals of decision theory.
Are these objections also objections to the combination of decision theory
and the dual-process theory of instrumental action?
The first minute of this section covers the same ground as the
start of What Are Preferences?.
Ask a Question
Your question will normally be answered in the question
session of the next lecture.
More information about asking questions.
: I use ‘decision theory’ for the theory elaborated by Jeffrey (1983). Variants are variously called ‘expected utility theory’ (Hargreaves-Heap & Varoufakis, 2004), ‘revealed preference theory’ (Sen, 1973) and ‘the theory of rational choice’ (Sugden, 1991). As the differences between variants are not important for our purposes, the term can be used for any of core formal parts of the standard approaches based on Ramsey (1931) and Savage (1972).
dual-process theory of instrumental action
: instrumental action ‘is controlled by two dissociable processes: a
goal-directed and an habitual process’ (Dickinson, 2016, p. 177).
: An action is instrumental if it happens in
order to bring about an outcome,
as when you press a lever in order to obtain food. (In this case,
obtaining food is the outcome, lever pressing is the action, and the
action is instrumental because it occurs in order to bring it about
that you obtain food.)
You may variations on this definition of instrumental in the literature.
Dickinson (2016, p. 177)
characterises instrumental actions differently: in place of the teleological
‘in order to bring about an outcome’, he stipulates that an instrumental
action is one that is ‘controlled by the contingency between’ the action
and an outcome. And de Wit & Dickinson (2009, p. 464) stipulate that
‘instrumental actions are learned’.
de Wit, S., & Dickinson, A. (2009). Associative theories of goal-directed behaviour: A case for animalhuman translational models. Psychological Research PRPF
(4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0230-6
Dickinson, A. (2016). Instrumental conditioning revisited: Updating dual-process theory. In J. B. Trobalon & V. D. Chamizo (Eds.), Associative learning and cognition
(Vol. 51, pp. 177–195). Edicions Universitat Barcelona.
Hargreaves-Heap, S., & Varoufakis, Y. (2004). Game theory: A critical introduction
. London: Routledge. Retrieved from http://webcat.warwick.ac.uk/record=b2587142~S1
Jeffrey, R. C. (1983). The logic of decision, second edition
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jia, R., Furlong, E., Gao, S., Santos, L. R., & Levy, I. (2020). Learning about the Ellsberg Paradox reduces, but does not abolish, ambiguity aversion. PLOS ONE
(3), e0228782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228782
Ramsey, F. (1931). Truth and probability. In R. Braithwaite (Ed.), The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays
. London: Routledge.
Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics
(2nd rev. ed). New York: Dover Publications.
Sen, A. (1973). Behaviour and the Concept of Preference. Economica
(159), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/2552796
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Context and content: Essays on intentionality in speech and thought
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. Journal of Economic Literature
(2), 332–382. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38.2.332
Sugden, R. (1991). Rational Choice: A Survey of Contributions from Economics and Philosophy. The Economic Journal
(407), 751–785. https://doi.org/10.2307/2233854
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574