Behaviormetrika

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 477–487 | Cite as

How previous choice affects decision attribute weights: a field survey

  • Tsuyoshi Hatori
  • Satoshi Fujii
  • Kazuhisa Takemura
Note

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of people’s prior choice making on their weights of decision attributes. According to theories on post-decision processes, preferences are likely to be reconstructed in line with a preceding choice. The present study hypothesized that preferences are constructed so that superior (inferior) attributes of a chosen alternative are weighted higher (lower) than before. This hypothesis was tested in a field survey of university students in Japan. The data supported the hypothesis that the weights of the superior (inferior) attributes of the chosen alternative increased (decreased) as time passed since the decision was made. This result suggests the validity of the causal relationship in which choice shapes preference, which is the reverse of what is generally assumed in decision research.

Keywords

Preference construction Attribute weights Utility function Stated preference survey 

References

  1. Amir O, Levav J (2008) Choice construction versus preference construction: the instability of preferences learned in context. J Mark Res 45:145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bem DJ (1972) Self-perception theory. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–62Google Scholar
  3. Brehm J (1966) A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Fujii S, Gärling T (2003) Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transp Res A Policy Pract 37(4):389–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hensher DA (1994) Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21:107–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hoch SJ, Deighton J (1989) Managing what consumers learn from experience. J Mark 53:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoeffler S, Ariely D (1999) Constructing stable preferences: a look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. J Consum Psychol 8(2):113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kiesler CA (1971) The psychology of commitment: experiments linking behavior to belief. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (2006) The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Montgomery H (1983) Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process model of decision making. In: Humphreys P, Svenson O, Vari A (eds) Analysing and aiding decision processes. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 343–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 43:87–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Russo JE, Medvec VH, Mely MG (1996) The distortion of information during decisions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 66(1):102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simon D, Krawczyk DC, Holyoak KJ (2004) Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychol Sci 15:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon D, Krawczyk DC, Bleicher A, Holyoak KJ (2008) The transience of constructed preferences. J Behav Decis Mak 21:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simonson I (2008) Will I like a “medium” pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. J Consum Psychol 18:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Svenson O (1992) Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: a frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 80:143–168Google Scholar
  20. Svenson O, Benthorn LJ (1992) Consolidation processes in decision making: post-decision changes in attractiveness of alternatives. J Econ Psychol 13:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Behaviormetric Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tsuyoshi Hatori
    • 1
  • Satoshi Fujii
    • 2
  • Kazuhisa Takemura
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental DesignEhime UniversityMatsuyamaJapan
  2. 2.Kyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  3. 3.Waseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations