Skip to main content
Log in

Probabilistic Subset Conjunction

  • Theory and Methods
  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors introduce subset conjunction as a classification rule by which an acceptable alternative must satisfy some minimum number of criteria. The rule subsumes conjunctive and disjunctive decision strategies as special cases.

Subset conjunction can be represented in a binary-response model, for example, in a logistic regression, using only main effects or only interaction effects. This results in a confounding of the main and interaction effects when there is little or no response error. With greater response error, a logistic regression, even if it gives a good fit to data, can produce parameter estimates that do not reflect the underlying decision process. The authors propose a model in which the binary classification of alternatives into acceptable/unacceptable categories is based on a probabilistic implementation of a subset-conjunctive process. The satisfaction of decision criteria biases the odds toward one outcome or the other. The authors then describe a two-stage choice model in which a (possibly large) set of alternatives is first reduced using a subset-conjunctive rule, after which an alternative is selected from this reduced set of items. They describe methods for estimating the unobserved consideration probabilities from classification and choice data, and illustrate the use of the models for cancer diagnosis and consumer choice. They report the results of simulations investigating estimation accuracy, incidence of local optima, and model fit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, R.L., & Srinivasan, T.C. (1995). Studying consideration effects in empirical choice models using scanner panel data. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthelemy, J.-P., & Mullet, E. (1987). A polynomial model for expert categorical data. In E.E. Roskam, & R. Suck (Eds.), Progress in Mathematical Psychology, Vol. I, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

  • Barthelemy, J.-P., & Mullet, E. (1996). Information processing in similarity judgements. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 49, 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S.R. (1993). Discrete choice analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boros, E., Hammer, P.L., & Hooker, J.N. (1994). Predicting cause–effect relationships from incomplete discrete observations. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 7, 531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boros, E., Hammer, P., & Hooker, J.N. (1995). Boolean regression. Annals of Operations Research, 58, 201–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C.H. (1951). Mathematical models in psychological scaling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46 (256), 480–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L.G. (1993). Market-share models. In J. Eliashberg, & G. L. Lillien (Eds.), Handbooks of Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 5, Marketing, (pp. 257–313). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crama, Y., Hammer, P.L., & Ibaraki, T. (1988). Cause–effect relationships and partially defined Boolean functions. Annals of Operations Research, 16, 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R.M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J. (1970). The use of nonlinear compensatory models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 221–230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gradshteyn, I.S., Ryzhik, I.M., & Jeffrey, A. (1994). Tables of integrals, series and products (5th ed.), San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  • Grether, D., & Wilde, L. (1984). An analysis of conjunctive choice: Theory and experiments. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., & Klein, N. (1991). Adapting cutoffs to the choice environment: The effects of attribute correlation and reliability. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 346–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leenen, I., & Van Mechelen, I. (1998). A branch-and-bound algorithm for Boolean regression. In I. Balderjahn, R. Mathar, & M. Schader (Eds.), Data highways and information flooding: A challenge for classification and data analysis (pp. 164–171. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Luce, R. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, D.A., & Olshavsky, R.W. (1979). Task complexity and contingent processing in brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 6 (2), 154–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala, G.S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.

  • Maris, E. (1999). Estimating multiple classification latent class models. Psychometrika, 64 (2), 187–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mela, C., & Lehmann, D.R. (1995). Using fuzzy set theoretic techniques to identify preference rules from interactions in the linear model: An empirical study. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 71, 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Toward a process model of decision-making. In P.C. Humphrey, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision process. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

  • Payne, J.W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.L. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, C.R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., & Lattin, J. (1991). Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 429–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swait, J. (2001). A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cut-offs. Transportation Research Part B, 35, 903–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teigen, K.H., Martinussen, M., & Lund, T. (1996). Linda versus World Cup: Conjunctive probabilities in three-event fictional and real-life predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 77–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Mechelen, I. (1988). Prediction of a dichotomous criterion variable by means of a logical combination of dichotomous predictors. Mathematiques, informatiques et sciences humaines, 102, 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westenberg, M.R.M., & Koele, P. (1994). Multi-attribute evaluation processes: Methodological and conceptual issues. Acta Psychologica, 87, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolberg, W.H., Street, W.N., Heisey, D.M., & Mangasarian, O.L. (1995). Computerized breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis from fine needle aspirates. Archives of Surgery, 130, 511–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P.L. (1975). Consumer choice strategies: Simplifying versus optimizing. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P.L., & Barbour, F. (1977). Phased decision strategies: Sequels to an initial screening. In M.K. Starr, & M. Zeleny (Eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, (Vol. 6, pp. 91–109). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamel Jedidi.

Additional information

The authors thank the Editor, the Associate Editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions, and also thank Asim Ansari and Raghuram Iyengar for their helpful comments. They also thank Sawtooth Software, McKinsey and Company, and Intelliquest for providing the PC choice data, and the University of Wisconsin for making the breast-cancer data available at the machine learning archives.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kohli, R., Jedidi, K. Probabilistic Subset Conjunction. Psychometrika 70, 737–757 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-002-0978-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-002-0978-8

Keywords

Navigation