Preference Reversals: Violations of Unidimensional Procedure Invariance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 1196-1205

  Stalmeier, Peep F M ^a,b,c   Wakker, Peter P ^d   Bezembinder, Thom G G ^e  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031522738     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.23.4.1196     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Anderson, N. H. (1976). How functional measurement can yield validated interval scales of mental quantities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 677-692.
2. Beattie, J., & Baron, J. (1991). Investigating the effect of stimulus range on attribute weight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 571-585.
3. Birnbaum, M. H. (1992). Violations of monotonicity and contextual effects in choice-based certainty equivalents. Psychological Science, 3, 310-314.
4. Birnbaum, M. H., Coffey, G., Mellers, B. A., & Weiss, R. (1992). Utility measurement: Configural-weight theory and the judge's point of view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 331-346.
5. Birnbaum, M. H., & Sutton, S. E. (1992). Scale convergence and utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 183-215.
6. Bohm, P. (1994). Time preference and preference reversal among experienced subjects: The effects of real payments. Economic Journal, 104, 1370-1378.
7. Bostic, R., Herrnstein, R. J., & Luce, R. D. (1990). The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 13, 193-212.
8. Casey, J. T. (1991). Reversal of the preference reversal phenomenon. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 224-251.
9. Cho, Y., Luce, R. D., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1994). Tests of assumptions about the joint receipt of gambles in rank- and sign-dependent utility theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 931-943.
10. Delquié, P. (1993). Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: New evidence in preference assessment biases. Management Science, 39, 1382-1395.
11. Fischer, G. W., & Hawkins, S. A. (1993). Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 580-597.
12. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In T. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. 119-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Goldstein, W. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94, 236-254.
14. Gonzáles-Vallejo, C. C., & Wallsten, T. S. (1992). Effects of probability mode on preference reversal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 855-864.
15. Grether, D., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 69, 623-638.
16. Hall, J., Gerard, K., Salkeld, G., & Richardson, J. (1992). A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 993-1004.
17. Hawkins, S. A. (1994). Information processing strategies in risk-less preference reversals: The prominence effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 1-26.
18. Hershey, J. C., & Schoemaker, P. H. J. (1985). Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: Are they equivalent? Management Science, 31, 1213-1231.
19. Johnson, E., & Schkade, D. (1989). Bias in utility assessments: Further evidence and explanations. Management Science, 35, 406-424.
20. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46-55.
21. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preferences in gambling: An extended replication in Las Vegas. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 16-20.
22. Lindman, H. R. (1971). Inconsistent preferences among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 390-397.
23. Loomes, G., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1989). Preference reversal: Information-processing effect of rational non-transitive choice? Economic Journal, 99(Suppl.), 140-151.
24. McNeil, B. J., Weichselbaum, R., & Pauker, S. G. (1981). Speech and survival: Trade-offs between quality and quantity of life in laryngeal cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 305, 982-987.
25. Mellers, B., Weiss, R., & Birnbaum, M. (1992). Violations of dominance in pricing judgments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 73-90.
26. Mellers, B. A., Chang, S., Birnbaum, M. H., & Ordóñez, L. (1992). Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 347-361.
27. Mellers, B. A., Ordóñez, L., & Birnbaum, M. H. (1992). A change-of-process theory for contextual effects and preference reversals in risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 331-369.
28. Miyamoto, J. M., & Eraker, S. A. (1988). A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 3-20.
29. Pliskin, J. S., Shepard, D. S., & Weinstein, M. C. (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 28, 206-224.
30. Pommerehne, W., Schneider, F., & Zweifel, P. (1982). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon: A re-examination. American Economic Review, 72, 569-574.
31. Sackett, D. L., & Torrance, G. W. (1978). The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Disease, 31, 697-704.
32. Slovic, P. (1975). Choice between equally valued alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 280-287.
33. Slovic, P., Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 5-27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversal: A broader perspective. American Economic Review, 72, 923-955.
35. Stalpers, L. J. A. (1991). Clinical decision making in oncology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
36. Sutherland, H. J., Llewelyn-Thomas, H., Boyd, N. F., & Till, J. E. (1982). Attitudes toward quality of survival: The concept of "maximum endurable time." Medical Decision Making, 2, 299-309.
37. Torrance, G. W., Thomas, W. H., & Sackett, D. L. (1972). A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Services Research, 7, 118-133.
38. Tverskv, A., & Griffin, D. (1991). Endowment and contrast in judgments of well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being (pp. 101-118). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 297-323.
40. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371-384.
41. Tversky, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). The causes of preference reversal. American Economic Review, 80, 204-217.
42. Verhoef, L. C. G. The measurement of individual preferences for treatment outcomes in breast cancer. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
43. Viscusi, W. K., & Evans, W. N. (1990). Utility functions that depend on health status: Estimates and economic implications. American Economic Review, 80, 353-374.
44. von Winterfeldt, D., Chung, N. K., Luce, R. D., & Cho, Y. (1997). Tests of consequence monotonicity in decision making under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 406-426.