Qualitative heuristics for balancing the pros and cons

Theory and Decision

Volumn 65, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 71-95

  Bonnefon, Jean François ^a   Dubois, Didier ^b   Fargier, Hélène ^b   Leblois, Sylvie ^a  

^a LTC   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Behavioral data; Bipolar information; Cumulative Prospect Theory; Decision heuristics; Qualitative information; Take the Best

Indexed keywords

BUSINESS MEDIA; CUMULATIVE PROSPECT THEORY; DECISION PROCEDURES; FORMAL FRAMEWORK; SPRINGER (CO);

HEURISTIC METHODS;

EID: 45849132062     PISSN: 00405833     EISSN: 15737187     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11238-007-9050-6     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Amgoud L., Bonnefon J.F. and Prade H. (2005). An argumentation-based approach for multiple criteria decision. In: Godo, L. (eds) Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty-Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp 269-280. Springer Verlag, Berlin
2. Benferhat S., Cayrol C., Dubois D., Lang J. and Prade H. (1993). Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In: Bajcsy, R. (eds) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 640-645. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA
3. Benferhat S., Dubois D., Kaci S. and Prade H. (2006). Bipolar possibility theory in preference modeling: representation, fusion and optimal solutions. Information Fusion 7(1): 135-150
4. Bröder A. (2000). Assessing the empirical validity of the "Take-The-Best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26(5): 1332-1346
5. Bröder A. and Schiffer S. (2003). "Take The Best" versus simultaneous feature matching: probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132(2): 277-293
6. Cacioppo J.T. and Berntson G.G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: a critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin 115(3): 401-423
7. Cacioppo J.T., Gardner W.L. and Berntson G.G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and integrative processing components: form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(5): 839-855
8. Dawes R.M. and Corrigan B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin 81(2): 95-106
9. Dubois D. and Fargier H. (2005). On the qualitative comparison of sets of positive and negative affects. In: Godo, L. (eds) Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty-Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp 305-316. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
10. Dubois D. and Fargier H. (2006). Qualitative decision making with bipolar information. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulous, J. and Welty, C. (eds) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp 175-186. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA
11. Dubois D. and Prade H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: a retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 144(1): 3-23
12. Einhorn H.J. and Hogarth R.M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 13(2): 171-192
13. Fargier H., Dubois D. and Prade H. (1996). Refinements of the maximin approach to decision-making in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81(1): 103-122
14. Gigerenzer G. and Goldstein D.G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103(4): 650-669
15. Hogarth R.M. and Karelaia N. (2005). Simple models for multi-attribute choice with many alternatives: when it does and does not pay to face trade-offs with binary attributes. Management Science 51(12): 1860-1872
16. Ito T.A. and Cacioppo J.T. (2005). Variations on a human universal: individual differences in positivity offset and negativity bias. Cognition and Emotion 19(1): 1-26
17. Johnson E.J., Hershey J., Meszaros J. and Kunreuther H. (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7(1): 35-51
18. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L. and Thaler R.H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 193-206
19. Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263-291
20. Katsikopoulos K.V. and Martignon L. (2006). Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: some results on their relative accuracy. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50: 488-494
21. Martignon L. and Hoffrage U. (2002). Fast, frugal and fit: simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision 52(1): 29-71
22. Newell B.R. and Shanks D.R. (2003). Take-the-best or look at the rest? Factors influencing 'one-reason' decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory and Cognition 29(1): 53-65
23. Newell B.R., Weston N.J. and Shanks D.R. (2003). Empirical tests of a fast and frugal heuristic: not everyone "takes-the-best". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91(1): 82-96
24. Rieskamp, J., Hoffrage, U. (1999), When do people use simple heuristics and how can we tell? in G. Gigerenzer, P.M. Todd, and the ABC group (eds.), Simple Heuristics that Make us Smart, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp. 141-167.
25. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297-323
26. Wald A. (1971). Statistical Decision Functions. Wiley, New York