Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 233–248 | Cite as

Bounded Rationality Modeling

  • Bertrand Munier
  • Reinhard Selten
  • D. Bouyssou
  • P. Bourgine
  • R. Day
  • N. Harvey
  • D. Hilton
  • M. J. Machina
  • Ph. Parker
  • J. Sterman
  • E. Weber
  • B. Wernerfelt
  • R. Wensley
Article

Abstract

This paper deals with bounded rationality as a way to describe behavior and focuses on the question of how to build such boundedly rational models. The first part is a discussion of the reasons why such models are needed and on the situations in which they can be regarded as more particularly useful. The second part examines three strategies of research towards bounded rationality modeling which have emerged in the last ten years and weights them. The concluding remarks offer a first link between the respective typologies of strategies and of situations and calls for additional experimental work by marketing scientists and economists together.

Decision-making consumer behavior procedural rationality choice functionals adaptive behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M. and B. Munier (1994) On the Fundamental Risk-Structure Dependence of Individual Preferences under Risk: An Experimental Investigation, NR GRID 94–07. Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan.Google Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui, M. and B. Munier (1998a) The Risk-Structure Dependence Effect: Experimenting with an Eye to Decision-Aid, Annals of Operations Research, 80, 237–252.Google Scholar
  3. Abdellaoui, M. et B. Munier (1998b) Testing Probability tradeoff Consistency in Individual Decision Making, NR GRID n° 98–13, mimeo, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan.Google Scholar
  4. Abdellaoui, M. and B. Munier (1999) How consistent are Probability tradeoffs in individual preferences under risk? Some preliminary results, in: Machina, M. J. and B. Munier, eds., Beliefs, Interaction and Preferences in Decision Making, Dordrecht/Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  5. Allais, M. (1952). Fondements d'une théorie positive des choix comportant un risqué, Econométrie, Colloques Internationaux du C. N. R. S., Paris, Publications du CNRS. 127–140.Google Scholar
  6. Allais, M. (1974), Contributions à la science économique 1943–1974, mimeo, Centre d'Analyse Economique N° 36-03, Ecole des Mines de Paris.Google Scholar
  7. Armstrong, J. S. (1985) Long Range Forecasting: From Crystall Ball to Computer, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, S. B., M. H. Bazerman and J. S. Carroll (1991) An Evaluation of Learning in the Bilateral Winner's Curse, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 1–22.Google Scholar
  9. Bazerman, M. H. and W. Samuelson (1983) The Winner's Curse: An Empirical Investigation, in: R. Tietz (ed.), Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, N° 213, Berlin/Heidelberg, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Baz, Jamil, et al. (1999), Risk Perception in the Short Run and in the Long Run, Marketing Letters, this issue.Google Scholar
  11. Becker, J. and R. Sarin, 1987, Lottery-Dependent Utility, Management Science, 11, 1367 1382.Google Scholar
  12. Bolger, F. and N. Harvey (1998) Heuristics and Biases in Judgmental Forecasting in: G. Wright and P. Goodwin, (eds.), Forecasting with Judgment, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Conlisk, J. (1996) Why Bounded Rationality, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 669–700.Google Scholar
  14. Day, R. H. (1971) Rational Choice and Economic Behavior, Theory and Decision, 1, 229–251.Google Scholar
  15. Day, R. H. and M. Pingle (1991) Economizing economizing, in: R. Franz, H. Singh and J. Gerber, eds., Handbook of Behavioral Economics, 2B, Greenwich, Connecticut, JAI Press, pp. 511–524.Google Scholar
  16. Gittins, J. C. (1989) Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, N. (1999) Improving Judgment in Forecasting, in: J. S. Armstrong (ed.), Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, Norwell, Mass., Kluwer Academic Publishers. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk, Econometrica, 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  19. Kampmann, C. and J. D. Sterman (1998) Feedback Complexity, Bounded Rationality and Market Dynamics, Sloan School of Management, M. I. T. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  20. Keser, C. (1997) SUPER: Strategies used in Public Goods Experimentation Rounds, Discussion Paper, University of Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
  21. Knight, F. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Chicago, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kreps, D. M. (1997) Bounded Rationality in: P. Newman (ed.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law, London, Macmillan. P. 168–173.Google Scholar
  23. Lesourne, J., 1991, Économie de l'ordre et du désordre, Paris, Economica.Google Scholar
  24. Machina, M. J. (1989) Dynamic Consistency and Non-Expected Utility Models of Choice Under Uncertainty, Journal of Economic Literature, XXVII, 1622–1668.Google Scholar
  25. Mongin, P. (1994) L'optimisation est-elle un critère de rationalité individuelle?, Dialogue, 33, 191–222.Google Scholar
  26. Munier, B. (1993) Komplexität, das Konzept Unsicherheit and beschränkte Rationalität des Menschen, Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftsforschung, 7–8, 113-126.Google Scholar
  27. Munier, B. (1994) Décision et Cognition: Quelques points de repère, Revue Francaise de Gestion, 99, 79–91.Google Scholar
  28. Munier, B. (1999) Two-Stage Rationality Under Risk: Experimental Results and Perspectives, Rivista di Matematica per le Scienze Economiche e Soziali, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  29. Parker, P. and N. T. Tavassoli (1997) Physioeconomic Theories of Culture and Consumption, WP 97/70/MKT, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Mimeo.Google Scholar
  30. Poumadère, M., C. Mays, P. Slovic, J. Flynn and S. Johnson (1995) What lies behind Public Acceptance? Comparision of U. S. and French Perceptions of the Nuclear Power Option, Proceedings of an International Conference on the Nuclear Power Option, Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  31. Pingle, M. and R. H. Day (1996) Modes of Economizing Behavior: Experimental Evidence, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 29, 191–209.Google Scholar
  32. Prelec, D., B. Wernerfelt and F. Zettelmeyer (1997) The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring what You Want from What is Available, Journal of Consumer research, 24, 118–125.Google Scholar
  33. Pruitt, D. G. (1970) Reward Structure of Cooperation: The Decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma Game, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 21–27.Google Scholar
  34. Quiggin, J. (1982) A Theory of Anticipated Utility, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 4, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Quiggin, J. (1993) Generalized Expected Utility Theory, The Rank-Dependent Model, Boston/Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Rubinstein, A. (1998) Modeling Bounded Rationality, Cambridge, Mass., M. I. T. Press.Google Scholar
  37. Savage, L. J. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Selten, R. (1987) Equity and Coalition Bargaining in Experimental Three-Person Games, in: A. E. Roth, ed., Laboratory Experimentation in Economics, Six Points of View, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pp. 42–98.Google Scholar
  39. Selten, R. (1997) Features of Experimentally Observed Bounded Rationality, DP B-421, Sonderforschungsbereich 303, University of REF.Google Scholar
  40. Selten, R., M. Mitzkewitz and G. R. Uhlich (1997) Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players, Econometrica, 65, n° 3, 517–555.Google Scholar
  41. Selten, R. and R. Stoecker (1986) End Behavior in Sequences of Finite Prisoner's Dilemma Supergames, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 7, 47–70.Google Scholar
  42. Simon, H. A. (1986) Rationality in Psychology and Economics, in: R. M. Hogarth and M. W. Reder (eds.), Rational Choice, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 25–40.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, H. A. (1995) The Information-Processing Theory of Mind, The American Psychologist, 50, 7, 507–508.Google Scholar
  44. Simonson, I. (1989), Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, V. L. (1991) Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology, Journal of Political Economy, 99, 4, 877–897.Google Scholar
  46. Snell, J. L. (1952) Applications of martingale Systems Theorems, Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 73, 293–312.Google Scholar
  47. Tisdell, C., 1996, Bounded Rationality and Economic Evolution, A Contribution To Decision Making, Economics and Management, Cheltenham/Brookfield, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Weber, E. U. and B. Kirsner, Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 41–61.Google Scholar
  49. Wernerfelt, B. (1995) A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities, Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 627–633.Google Scholar
  50. Winter, E. and S. Zamir (1997) An Experiment with Ultimatum Bargaining in a Changing Environment, DP 159, December, Center for Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bertrand Munier
    • 1
  • Reinhard Selten
    • 2
  • D. Bouyssou
    • 3
  • P. Bourgine
    • 4
  • R. Day
    • 5
  • N. Harvey
    • 6
  • D. Hilton
    • 7
  • M. J. Machina
    • 8
  • Ph. Parker
    • 9
  • J. Sterman
    • 10
  • E. Weber
    • 11
  • B. Wernerfelt
    • 10
  • R. Wensley
    • 11
  1. 1.GRID, Ecole Normale Supérieure de CachanFrance
  2. 2.University of BonnGermany
  3. 3.ESSECFrance
  4. 4.CREA, Ecole PolytechniqueFrance
  5. 5.University of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  6. 6.University College LondonUK
  7. 7.Université de Toulouse-IIFrance
  8. 8.University of California at San DiegoUSA
  9. 9.INSEADUSA
  10. 10.M.I.TUSA
  11. 11.Ohio State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations