Differences between the Purposes of the Dominance Search Model and the Acceptable Decision-Making Search Model
This study clarifies the differences in the decision-making processes between the dominance search model and the acceptable decision-making search model. For this purpose, we analyzed the behavioral patterns of the two decision-making models based on empirical decision-making cases. We found that, although the upper purposes of decision-making are the same, the two models have fundamentally different lower purposes and, hence, their decision-making pro-cesses are very different. Additionally, the lower decision-making purposes of both models are conceptually defined as explicit and implicit, and their differences derive from the behavioral patterns between Japanese and Westerners based on the research results of Nisbett. This re-search is a very important topic for smooth consensus building with people who have different ways of thinking and so on. This is not only an academic contribution to clarify the nature of cross-cultural decision-making, but also useful in discussing effective approaches to negotiation in business.
P. Nutt, “Models for decision-making in organizations and some contextual variables which stipulate optimal use”, The Academy of Management review, 1(2), Academy of Manage-ment ,1976, pp. 84-139.
Y. Kobashi, and S. Ichikawa, Kettei o shiensuru. Tōkyo: Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppankai, 1988.
R. L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York, 1976.
H. A. Simon, Administrative Behavior 4/E, The Free Press,1997.
H. Montgomery, “Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Toward a Process Model of Decision Making,” Analysing and Aiding Decision Processes, P. Hum-phreys, O. Svenson, and A. Vari, ed., North-Holland, 1983, pp. 343-360.
T. Hosoda, A Study on Methods of Practical Decision Making-Construction of a Conceptual Model for Acceptable Decision Making. PhD thesis. Tokyo, Waseda University, 2017.
A. Newell, J. C. Shaw, and H. A. Simon “Empirical Explorations of the Logic Theory Ma-chine: A Case Study in Heuristics,” Computers and Thought, E. A. Feingenbaum, and J. Feldman, ed., McGraw-Hill, 1963, p. 114.
T. Adelbratt, and H. Montgomery, “Attractiveness of Decision Rules,” Acta Psychologica, 45, 1980, pp.177-185.
H. Montgomery, and O. Svenson, “On decision rules and information processing strategies for choices among multiattribute alternatives,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 1976, pp. 283-291.
H. A. Simon, The New Science of Management Decision rev.ed., Prentice-Hall ,1977.
H. A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial 3/E, Nobel Foundation,1996.
H. A. Simon, “From Substantive to Procedural Rationality,” Method and Appraisal in Economics, S. J. Latsis, ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976, pp.129-148.
T. Hosoda, and H. Maruyama, “A Purpose of Decision Making in Heuristics Descriptive Model,” International Conference on Decision Science, Theory and Management (DSTM 2020), 2020, pp. 766-772.
W. Damon, J. Menon, and K. C. Bronk, “The Development of Purpose During Adoles-cence”, Applied Developmental Science 7(3), 2003, pp. 119-128.
R. E. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Different-lyand Why, London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 2005.
T. Hosoda, and H. Maruyama, “The differences between Japanese and Westerner in terms of “Purpose”,” Pan-pacific Management Science, 2, 2019, pp.67 – 79.  A. Haruta, and K. Hallahan, “Cultural issues in airline crisis communications: A Japan‐US comparative study,” Asian Journal of Communication, 13(2), 2003, pp. 122-150.
E. Meyer, The culture map: breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York, Public Affairs, 2014.  W. L. Adair, T. Okumura, and J. M. Brett, “Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the United States and Japan,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 2001, pp.371-385.
S. Yamamoto, "Kūki" no kenkyū. Bungei Shunjū, 2018.
S. Hara, Nihonjin no kachikan: Ibunka Rikai no Kiso O Kizuku. Kamakurashunjusha, 2013. 16