Conflict and the stochastic-dominance principle of decision making

Psychological Science

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 353-359

  Diederich, Adele ^a   Busemeyer, Jerome R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346304881     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00167     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 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.
2. Birnbaum, M.H., & Thompson, L.A. (1996). Violations of monotonicity in choices between gambles and certain cash. American Journal of Psychology, 109, 501-523.
3. Busemeyer, J.R., & Townsend, J.T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.
4. Clemen, R.T. (1996). Making hard decisions. New York: Duxbury Press.
5. Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time pressure. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 260-274.
6. Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J.R. (1999). Multi-attribute decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to multi-attribute risky decision making. Unpublished manuscript, Univesitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
7. Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
8. Luce, R.D. (1992). Where does subjective expected utility theory fail descriptively? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 5-28.
9. Luce, R.D., & Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 249-410). New York: Wiley.
10. Mellers, B.A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory: How we feel about risky options. Psychological Science, 8, 423-429.
11. Mellers, B.A., Weiss, R., & Birnbaum, M.H. (1992). Violations of dominance in pricing judgments. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 73-90.
12. Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J.N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356.
13. Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80, 143-168.
14. Townsend, J.T., & Busemeyer, J.R. (1995). Dynamic representation of decision making. In R.F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion (pp. 101-121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 297-324.
16. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3, 358-361.
17. Wakker, P. (1989). Transforming probabilities without violating stochastic dominance. In E.E. Roskam (Ed.), Mathematical psychology in progress (pp. 29-47). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.