Rational preference shifts in multi-attribute choice: What is fair?

Cooperative Minds: Social Interaction and Group Dynamics - Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 1300-1305

  Shenoy, Pradeep ^a   Yu, Angela J ^b  

^a MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

attraction effect; compromise effect; context effects; multi attribute decision making; preference shift; similarity effect

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; COMMERCE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ATTRACTION EFFECT; CHOICE BEHAVIORS; COMPROMISE EFFECTS; CONTEXT DEPENDENT; CONTEXT EFFECTS; MULTI ATTRIBUTE DECISION MAKING; MULTI-ATTRIBUTES; PREFERENCE REVERSALS; PREFERENCE SHIFT; SIMILARITY EFFECT;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 84975748053     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational. Harper Collins.
2. Bishop, C. M. (2006). Pattern recognition and machine learning. Springer.
3. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive psychology, 57(3), 153-178.
4. Busemeyer, J., & Townsend, J. (1993). Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological review, 100(3), 432-459.
5. Choplin, J., & Hummel, J. (2005). Comparison-induced decoy effects. Memory & Cognition, 33(2), 332-343.
6. Debreu, G. (1958). Stochastic choice and cardinal utility. Econometrica, 26, 440-444.
7. Douglas, P. (1976). The Cobb-Douglas production function once again: Its history, its testing, and some new empirical values. The Journal of Political Economy, 84, 903-915.
8. Drolet, A., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (2000). Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Letters, 11:3, 199-209.
9. Heath, T., & Chatterjee, S. (1995). Asymmetric decoy effects on lower-quality versus higher-quality brands: Meta-analytic and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 268-284.
10. Hicks, J. R. (1932). The Theory of Wages. London, UK: Macmillan.
11. Hsee, C., Zhang, J., Yu, F., & Xi, Y. (2004). Lay rationalism and inconsistency between predicted experience and decision. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16.
12. Huber, J., Payne, J., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98.
13. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ Press.
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263-292.
15. Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
16. Luce, R. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R. Luce, R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 249-410). New York: Wiley.
17. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: Freeman.
18. Pareto, V. (1927). Manual of political economy Tr. by Ann S. Schwier. London: Macmillan.
19. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108(2), 370-392.
20. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101(3), 467-494.
21. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2011). Levels of Information: A Framing Hierarchy. In Perspectives on framing. Psychology Press.
22. Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69(1), 99-118.
23. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(158-74).
24. Srivastava, N., & Schrater, P. (2012). Rational inference of relative preferences. Advance in Neural Information Processing Systems, 25.
25. Thurstone, L. (1954). The measurement of values. Psychological Review, 61, 47-58.
26. Trueblood, J., Brown, S., Heathcote, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (n.d.). Not just for consumers: Context effects are fundamental to decision-making. Psychological Science.
27. Trueblood, J. S. (2012, October). Multialternative context effects obtained using an inference task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 962-8.
28. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological review, 79(4), 281-299.
29. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-89.
30. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological review, 111(3), 757-760.
31. Wernerfelt, B. (1995). A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. The Journal of Consumer Research, 4(2), 627-633.