Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 357–366 | Cite as

On the maximization of menu-dependent interval orders

  • Juan P. Aguilera
  • Levent ÜlküEmail author
Original Paper


We study the behavior of a decision maker who prefers alternative x to alternative y in menu A if the utility of x exceeds that of y by at least a threshold associated with y and A. Hence the decision maker’s preferences are given by menu-dependent interval orders. In every menu, her choice set comprises of undominated alternatives according to this preference. We axiomatize this broad model when thresholds are monotone, i.e., at least as large in larger menus. We also obtain novel characterizations in two special cases that have appeared in the literature: the maximization of a fixed interval order where the thresholds depend on the alternative and not on the menu, and the maximization of monotone semiorders where the thresholds are independent of the alternatives but monotonic in menus.


Decision Maker Feasible Alternative Interval Order Optimal Alternative Strict Partial Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aleskerov F, Bouyssou D, Monjardet B (2007) Utility maximization, choice and preference, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K (1959) Rational choice functions and orderings. Economica 26:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chernev A, Böckenholt U, Goodman J (2015) Choice overload: a conceptual review and meta analysis. J Consum Psychol 25(2):333–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chernoff H (1954) Rational selection of decision functions. Econometrica 22:422–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Echenique F, Saito K(2015) General Luce Model, CalTech SS Working Paper 1407Google Scholar
  6. Fishburn P (1970) Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishburn P (1975) Semiorders and choice functions. Econometrica 43:475–477Google Scholar
  8. Frick M (2015) Monotone threshold representations. Theor Econ (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  9. Gerasimou G (2015) Indecisiveness, undesirability and overload revealed through rational choice deferral. MPRA Working Paper 67290Google Scholar
  10. Iyengar S, Lepper MR (2002) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Personal Soc Psychol 79(6):995–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manzini P, Mariotti M (2012) Choice by lexicographic semiorders. Theor Econ 7:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Masatlıoğlu Y, Nakajima D (2013) Choice by iterative search. Theor Econ 8:701–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Masatlıoğlu Y, Nakajima D, Özbay E (2012) Revealed attention. Am Econ Rev 102(5):2183–2205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moulin H (1985) Choice functions over a finite set: a summary. Soc Choice Welf 2:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Payró F, Ülkü L (2015) Similarity-based mistakes in choice. J Math Econ 61:152–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Plott C (1973) Path independence, rationality and social choice. Econometrica 41:1075–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz T (1976) Choice functions, revealed preference. J Econ Theory 13:414–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sen A (1971) Choice functions and revealed preference. Rev Econ Stud 38:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Szpilrajn E (1930) Sur l’extension de l’ordre partiel. Fundam Math 16:386–389Google Scholar
  20. Tyson C (2008) Cognitive constraints, and the satisficing criterion. J Econ Theory 138:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Diskrete Mathematik und Geometrie at Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsCentro de Investigación Económica (CIE), ITAMCiudad de MéxicoMexico

Personalised recommendations