Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Behavioral Choice Model When Computational Ability Matters

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a model of how humans choose between mutually exclusive alternatives. The model is based on the observation that human decision makers are unable or unwilling to compute the overall worth of the offered alternatives. This approach models much human choice behavior as a process in which people seek to equate a less significant difference between alternatives on one dimension, thus leaving the greater one-dimensional difference to be differentiated as the determinant of the final choice. These aspects of the equate-to-differentiate model are shown to be able to provide an alternative and seemingly better account of the prominence effect. The model is also able to provide an explanation and prediction regarding the empirical violation of independence and transitivity axioms. It is suggested that the model allows understanding perplexing decision phenomena better than alternative models.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. O. Svenson, “Process descriptions of decision making,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 23, pp. 86-112, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M.K. Stevenson, J.R. Busemeyer, and J.C. Naylor, “Judgment and decision-making theory,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough, Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.: Palo Alto: California, 2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 283-374, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H.J. Einhorn and R.M. Hogarth, “Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 32, pp. 53-88, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.W. Payne, “Contingent decision behavior,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 92, pp. 382-402, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.W. Payne, J.R. Bettman, and E.J. Johnson, “Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 43, pp. 87-131, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. G.M. Marakas, Decision Support Systems in the Twenty-First Century, Prentice-Hall International: Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. Lee, Decision Theory and Human Behavior, Wiley: New York, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley: New York, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  10. N.H. Anderson, Foundations of Information Integration Theory, Academic Press: New York, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  11. S. Li, “Extended research on dominance violations in similarity judgements: The equate-to-differentiate interpretation,” Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, vol. 11, pp. 13-38, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Li, “What is the role of transparency in cancellation?” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 60, pp. 353-366, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Li, “An additional violation of transitivity and independence between alternatives,” Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 17, pp. 645-650, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Li, “Can the conditions governing the framing effect be determined?” Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 19, pp. 135-155, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. Li, “Violations of conjoint independence in binary choices: The equate-to-differentiate interpretation,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 148, pp. 65-79, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Slovic, “Choice between equally valued alternatives,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 1, pp. 280-287, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  17. A. Tversky, S. Sattath, and P. Slovic, “Contingent weighting in judgment and choice,” Psychological Review, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 371-384, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  18. L.L. Lopes, “Re-modeling risk aversion: A comparison of Bernoullian and rank dependent value approaches,” in Acting Under Uncertainty: Multidisciplinary Conceptions, edited by G.M. von Furstenberg, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, pp. 267-299, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P. Fishburn and P. Wakker, “The invention of the independence condition for preferences,” Management Science, vol. 41, pp. 1130-1144, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. Edwards, “The theory of decision making,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 51, pp. 380-416, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. Edwards, “Behavioral decision theory,” Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 473-498, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R.D. Luce and P. Suppes, “Preference, utility, and subjective probability,” in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, edited by R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush, and E. Galanter, Wiley: New York, 1965, vol. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  23. P.A. Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  24. A. Tversky, “Intransitivity of preferences,” Psychological Review, vol. 76, pp. 31-48, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  25. D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk,” Econometrica, vol. 47, pp. 263-291, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  26. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Rational choice and the framing of decisions,” Journal of Business, vol. 59, pp. S251-S278, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 5, pp. 297-323, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  28. D.V. Budescu and W. Weiss, “Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences:Atest of prospect theory,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 39, pp. 184-202, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  29. H.A. Simon, “A behavioral model of rational choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 69, pp. 99-118, 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  30. P.C. Fishburn, “Lexicographic orders, utilities, and decision rules: A survey,” Management Science, vol. 20, pp. 1442-1471, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  31. H. Montgomery, “A study of intransitive preferences using a think aloud procedure,” in Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, edited by H. Jungermann and G. de Zeeuw, Reidel: Derdrecht, pp. 347-362, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  32. H. Montgomery, “Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: Towards a process model of decision making,” in Advances in Psychology. Analysing and Aiding Decision Processes, edited by P. Humphreys, O. Svenson, and A. Vari, North-Holland: Amsterdam, pp. 343-369, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. Li, “Allais Paradox: A behavioral explanation,” Psychologica Sinica, vol. 33, pp. 176-181, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  34. S. Li, “The role of expected value illustrated in decisionmaking under risk: Single-play vs multiple-play,” Journal of Risk Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 113-124, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  35. S. Li, “Choice under uncertainty: Why it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” Formosan Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 8, pp. 19-29, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  36. S. Li and J.E. Taplin, “Examining whether there is a disjunction effect in Prisoner's Dilemma Games,” Chinese Journal of Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 25-46, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Needham, Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth. Science and Civilisation in China, Cambridge University Press: London, vol. 3, Sections 19-25, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Shu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, S. A Behavioral Choice Model When Computational Ability Matters. Applied Intelligence 20, 147–163 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:APIN.0000013337.01711.c7

Search

Navigation