A pattern language for goals

Previous work has established the value of goal-oriented approaches to requirements engineering. Achieving clarity and agreement about stakeholders’ goals and assumptions is critical for building successful software systems and managing their subsequent evolution. In general, this decision-making process requires stakeholders to understand the implications of decisions outside the domains of their own expertise. Hence it is important to support goal negotiation and decision making with description languages that are both precise and expressive, yet easy to grasp. This paper presents work in progress to develop a pattern language for describing goal refinement graphs. The language has a simple graphical notation, which is supported by a prototype editor tool, and a symbolic notation based on modal logic.

Responsibility effects in decision making under risk

We systematically explore decision situations in which a decision maker bears responsibility for somebody else's outcomes as well as for her own in situations of payoff equality. In the gain domain we confirm the intuition that being responsible for somebody else's payoffs increases risk aversion. This is however not attributable to a 'cautious shift' as often thought. Indeed, looking at risk attitudes in the loss domain, we find an increase in risk seeking under responsibility. This raises issues about the nature of various decision biases under risk, and to what extent changed behavior under responsibility may depend on a social norm of caution in situations of responsibility versus naive corrections from perceived biases. To further explore this issue, we designed a second experiment to explore risk-taking behavior for gain prospects offering very small or very large probabilities of winning. For large probabilities, we find increased risk aversion, thus confirming our earlier finding. For small probabilities however, we find an increase of risk seeking under conditions of responsibility. The latter finding thus discredits hypotheses of a social rule dictating caution under responsibility, and can be explained through flexible self-correction models predicting an accentuation of the fourfold pattern of risk attitudes predicted by prospect theory. An additional accountability mechanism does not change risk behavior, except for mixed prospects, in which it reduces loss aversion. This indicates that loss aversion is of a fundamentally different nature than probability weighting or utility curvature. Implications for debiasing are discussed.