Intrinsic variability in group and individual decision making

Management Science

Volumn 62, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 2651-2667

  Melkonyan, Tigran ^a   Safra, Zvi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Betweenness; Random preferences; Weak stochastic transitivity

Indexed keywords

MANAGERS; STOCHASTIC MODELS; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

BETWEENNESS; EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS; INDIVIDUAL DECISION MAKING; INHERENT VARIABILITY; INTRINSIC VARIABILITIES; MANAGERIAL DECISION MAKING; RANDOM PREFERENCES; STOCHASTIC TRANSITIVITY;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84959554521     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2255     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Ahn DS, Sarver T (2013) Preference for flexibility and random choice. Econometrica 81(1):341-361.
2. Becker G, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1963) Probabilities of choices among very similar objects: An experiment to decide between two models. Behav. Sci. 8(4):306-311.
3. Blavatskyy PR (2011) A model of probabilistic choice satisfying first-order stochastic dominance. Management Sci. 57(3): 542-548.
4. Brandstätter E, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R (2006) The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psych. Rev. 113(2): 409-432.
5. Cavagnaro DR, Davis-Stober CP (2014) Transitive in our preferences, but transitive in different ways: An analysis of choice variability. Decision 1(2):102-122.
6. Chew SH (1989) Axiomatic utility theories with the betweenness property. Ann. Oper. Res. 19(1):273-298.
7. Chew SH, Karni E, Safra Z (1987) Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. J. Econom. Theory 42(2):370-381.
8. Cohen M, Jaffray J-Y, Said T (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 39(1): 1-22.
9. Condorcet M (1785) Essai sur l'application de l'analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix 4Essay on the Application of the Probabilistic Analysis of Majority Vote Decisions5 (Imprimerie Royale, Paris).
10. Csaszar FA, Eggers JP (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10): 2257-2277.
11. Danan E (2010) Randomization vs. selection: How to choose in the absence of preference? Management Sci. 56(3):503-518.
12. Davidson D, Marschak J (1959) Experimental tests of a stochastic decision theory. Churchman CW, Ratoosh P, eds. Measurement: Definitions and Theories (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 233-269.
13. Davis-Stober CP (2009) Analysis of multinomial models under inequality constraints: Applications to measurement theory. J. Math. Psych. 53(1):1-13.
14. Dekel E (1986) An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty. J. Econom. Theory 40(2):304-318.
15. Dekel E, Lipman BD, Rustichini A (2001) Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space. Econometrica 69(4): 891-934.
16. Dekel E, Lipman BD, Rustichini A, Sarver T (2007) Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space: A corrigendum. Econometrica 75(2):591-600.
17. Dubra J, Maccheroni F, Ok EA (2004) Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom. J. Econom. Theory 115(1):118-133.
18. Fechner GT (1948) Elements of psychophysics, 1860. Wayne D, ed. Readings in the History of Psychology, Century Psychology Series (Appleton-Century-Crofts, East Norwalk, CT), 206-213.
19. Felsenthal DS, Maoz Z, Rapoport A (1990) The Condorcet-efficiency of sophisticated voting under the plurality and approval procedures. Behav. Sci. 35(1):24-33.
20. Felsenthal DS, Maoz Z, Rapoport A (1993) An empirical evaluation of six voting procedures-Do they really make any difference? British J. Political Sci. 23(1):1-27.
21. Fishburn P (1999) Stochastic utility. Barbara S, Hammond P, Seidl C, eds. Handbook of Utility Theory (Springer, Berlin), 273-320.
22. Galaabaatar T, Karni E (2013) Subjective expected utility with incomplete preferences. Econometrica 81(1):255-284.
23. Gehrlein WV (1981) Expected probability of Condorcet's paradox. Econom. Lett. 7(1):33-37.
24. Gehrlein WV (1997) Condorcet's paradox and the Condorcet efficiency of voting rules. Math. Japon. 45(1):173-199.
25. Gehrlein WV (2002) Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: Different perspectives on balanced preferences. Theory Decision 52(2):171-199.
26. Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1980) Social homogeneity and Condorcet's paradox. Public Choice 35(4):403-419.
27. Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (1997) Condorcet's paradox under the maximal culture condition. Econom. Lett. 55(1):85-89.
28. Grether DM, Plott C (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 69(4):623-638.
29. Gul F, Pesendorfer W (2006) Random expected utility. Econometrica 74(1):121-146.
30. Harless D, Camerer CF (1994) The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6):1251-1289.
31. Heller Y (2012) Justifiable choice. Games Econom. Behav. 76(2): 375-390.
32. Hey J (1995) Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3/4):633-640.
33. Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6): 1291-1326.
34. Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644-1655.
35. Iverson GJ, Falmagne J-C (1985) Statistical issues in measurement. Math. Soc. Sci. 10(2):131-153.
36. Karni E, Safra Z (2014) A theory of stochastic choice under uncertainty. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
37. Kreps DM (1979) A representation theorem for preference for flexibility. Econometrica 47(3):565-576.
38. Lehrer E, Teper R (2011) Justifiable preferences. J. Econom. Theory 146(2):762-774.
39. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1971) Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(1): 46-55.
40. Lindman HR (1971) Inconsistent preferences among gambles. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(2):390-397.
41. Loomes G, Sugden R (1995) Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3/4):641-648.
42. Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 59(2): 425-439.
43. Loomes G, Rodríguez-Puerta I, Pinto-Prades J-L (2014) Comment on A model of probabilistic choice satisfying first-order stochastic dominance by Pavlo Blavatskyy. Management Sci. 60(5):1346-1350.
44. Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Luce RD, Bush RB, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 3 (John Wiley & Sons, New York), 249-410.
45. Maccheroni F (2004) Yaari's dual theory without the completeness axiom. Econom. Theory 23(3):701-714.
46. Machina MJ (1982) Expected utility analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50(2):277-323.
47. Mueller DC (2003) Public Choice III (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
48. Myung J, Karabatsos G, Iverson G (2005) A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. J. Math. Psych. 49(3):205-225.
49. Ok EA, Ortoleva P, Riella G (2012) Incomplete preferences under uncertainty: Indecisiveness in beliefs versus tastes. Econometrica 80(4):1791-1808.
50. Otter T, Johnson J, Rieskamp J, Allenby GM, Brazell JD, Diedrich A, Hutchinson JW, MacEachern S, Ruan S, Townsend J (2008) Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances. Marketing Lett. 19(3/4):255-267.
51. Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):323-343.
52. Regenwetter M (2009) Perspectives on preference aggregation. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 4(4):403-407.
53. Regenwetter M, Grofman B (1998) Approval voting, Borda winners and Condorcet winners: Evidence from seven elections. Management Sci. 44(4):520-533.
54. Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2010) Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data. Frontiers Psych. 1:Article 148.
55. Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2011) Transitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 118(1):42-56.
56. Regenwetter M, Grofman B, Marley A, Tsetlin I (2006) Behavioral Social Choice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).
57. Regenwetter M, Grofman B, Popova A, Messner W, Davis-Stober CP, Cavagnaro DR (2009) Behavioural social choice: A status report. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B: Biol. Sci. 364(1518): 833-843.
58. Rieskamp J, Busemeyer JR, Mellers BA (2006) Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. J. Econom. Literature 44(3):631-661.
59. Riker W (1982) Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco).
60. Rockafellar RT (1970) Convex Analysis (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).
61. Safra Z (2014) On betweenness, completeness and transitivity. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
62. Sen AK (1969) Quasi-transitivity, rational choice and collective decisions. Rev. Econom. Stud. 36(3):381-393.
63. Sen AK (1970) Collective Choice and Social Welfare (Holden-Day, San Francisco).
64. Sen AK (1999) The possibility of social choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(3):349-378.
65. Tangian A (2000) Unlikelihood of Condorcet's paradox in a large society. Soc. Choice Welfare 17(2):337-365.
66. Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 76(1): 31-48.
67. Vail S (1953) A stochastic model for utilities. Seminar on the application of mathematics to the social sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
68. Yaari ME (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55(1):95-115.