Preference Change

  • Fenrong Liu
Part of the Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy book series (SUTP)


The notion of preference is important in philosophy, decision theory, and many other disciplines. It is the interplay of information and preferences that provides the driving force behind what we actually do. The chapter adds a new focus and argues that preference is not static, instead, it changes dynamically when triggered by various kinds of events. We show that how a wide variety of preference changes can be modeled in logic, thereby providing the formal philosopher with a natural extension of the scope of inquiry in the area of preference.


  1. 1.
    Andréka, H., Ryan, M., & Schobbens, P.-Y. (2002). Operators and laws for combining preferential relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 12–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aucher, G. (2003). A combined system for update logic and belief revision. Master’s thesis, MoL-2003-03. ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aucher, G. (2008). Perspectives on belief and change. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Toulouse.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of common knowledge, public announcements, and private suspicions. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 98) (pp. 43–56).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2006). Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 06), Liverpool.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. In M. W. G. Bonanno & W. van der Hoek (Eds.), Logic and the foundations of game and decision theory (Texts in logic and games, Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baltag, A., Christoff, Z., Hansen, J. U., & Smets, S. (2008). Logical models of informational cascades. In J. van Benthem & F. Liu (Eds.), Logic across the university: Foundations and applications, Proceedings of the Tsinghua Logic Conference (Studies in logic, Vol. 47, pp. 405–432). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baltag, A., Liu, F., Shi, C., & Smets, S. (2017). Belief aggregation via Markov chain. Ongoing work, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boutilier, C. (1994). Conditional logics of normality: A modal approach. Artificial Intelligence, 68, 87–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boutilier, C., & Goldszmidt, M. (1993). Revision by conditional beliefs. In Proceedings of AAAI’93 (pp. 594–599).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bovens, L., & Ferreira, J. L. (2010). Monty Hall drives a wedge between Judy Benjamin and the Sleeping Beauty. A reply to Bovens. Analysis, 70(3), 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christoff, Z. (2016). Dynamic logics of networks. Information flow and the spread of opinion. Ph.D. dissertation, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dastani, M., Huang, Z., & van der Torre, L. (2000). Dynamic desires. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, 12, 200–202.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Jongh, D., & Liu, F. (2009). Preference, priorities and belief. In T. Grune-Yanoff & S. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (Theory and decision library, pp. 85–108). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2013). Where do preferences come from? International Journal of Game Theory, 42(3), 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fillion, N. (2007). Treating knowledge and preferences in game theory via modal logic. Technical report, The University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gabbay, D. M. (2010). Sampling logic and argumentation networks: A manifesto. Manuscript, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Girard, P. (2008). Modal logics for belief and preference change. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Girard, P., Liu, F., & Seligman, J. (2011). Logic in the community. In Proceedings of the 4th Indian Conference on Logic and its Applications (LNCS, Vol. 6521, pp. 178–188). Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grossi, D. (2011). An application of model checking games to abstract argumentation. In J. H. van Ditmarsch & S. Ju (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction (LORI 2009). (FoLLI-LNAI, Vol. 6953 pp. 74–86). Springer.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grove, A. (1988). Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grune-Yanoff, T., & Hansson, S. (Eds.) (2009). Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (Theory and decision library). Springer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hallden, S. (1957). On the logic of “better”. Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup. [Pioneer work in preference logic.]Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hansson, S. (1990). Preference-based deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 19, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hansson, S. (1995). Changes in preference. Theory and Decision, 38, 1–28. [The first work to study preference change using AGM framework.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hansson, S. (2001). Preference logic. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 4, pp. 319–393). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hansson, S. (2010). Multiple and iterated contraction reduced to single-step single-sentence contraction. Synthese, 173, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hansson, S., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2006). Preferences. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford.
  31. 31.
    Hansen, P. G., & Hendricks, V. F. (2014). Infostorms: How to take information punches and save democracy. Cham: Copernicus Books/Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hendricks, V. (2003). Active agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 469–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hill, B. (2009). Three analyses of source grapes. In T. Grune-Yanoff & S. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (Theory and decision library, pp. 27–56). Springer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Holliday, W. H. (2010). Epistemic logic and relevant alternatives. In M. Slavkovik (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Student Session of the European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (pp. 4–16).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoshi, T. (2009). Epistemic dynamics and protocol information. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Icard, T., Pacuit, E., & Shoham, Y. (2010). Joint revision of beliefs and intentions. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010) (pp. 572–574). AAAI Publications.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jeffrey, R. (1965). The logic of decision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ju, F., & Liu, F. (2011). Update semantics for imperatives with priorities. In J. L. H. van Ditmarsch & S. Ju (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3nd International Workshop on Logic, Rationality and Interaction (LORI 2011) (FoLLI-LNAI, Vol. 6953, pp. 127–140). Springer.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lang, J., van der Torre, L., & Weydert, E. (2003). Hidden uncertainty in the logical representation of desires. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’03) (pp. 189–231).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lang, J., & van der Torre, L. (2008). From belief change to preference change. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2008) (pp. 351–355). [Explore various kinds of preference change, and the connection between belief revision and preference change.]Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liang, Z., & Seligman, J. (2011). A logical model of the dynamics of peer pressure. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 278, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    List, C. & Pettit, P. (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy, 18, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Liu, F. (2008). Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu, F. (2011a). Reasoning about preference dynamics (Synthese library, Vol. 354). Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu, F. (2011b). A two-level perspective on preference. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 421–439. [Provide a richer structure of reason-based preference and study the dynamics of reasons and preference.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu, F., Seligman, J., & Girard, P. (2014). Logical dynamics of belief change in the community. Synthese, 191(11), 2403–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McClure, S. (2011). Decision making. Lecture slides SS100. Stanford University.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nayak, A., Nelson, P., & Polansky, H. (1996). Belief change as change in epistemic entrenchment. Synthese, 109(2), 143–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Osborne, M., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Osherson, D., & Weinstein, S. (2012). Preference based on reasons. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(1), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Osherson, D., & Weinstein, S. (2014). Quantified preference logic. arXiv:1208.2921Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Osherson, D., & Weinstein, S. (2014). Deontic modality based on preference. arXiv:1409.0824Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pacuit, E., Parikh, R., & Cogan, E. (2006). The logic of knowledge based on obligation. Synthese, 149, 311–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Reisner, A., & Steglich-Petersen, A. (Eds.) (2011). Reasons for belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rott, H. (2001). Change, choice and inference: A study of belief and revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Searle, J. R., & Veken, D. v. d. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Segerberg, K. (2001). The basic dynamic doxastic logic of AGM’. In M.-A. Williams & H. Rott (Eds.), Frontiers in belief revision (pp. 57–84). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Spohn, W. (1988). Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In W. Harper & B. Skyrms (Eds.), Causation in decision, belief change and statistics II (pp. 105–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Spohn, W. (2009). Why the received models of considering preference change must fail. In T. Grune-Yanoff & S. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology (Theory and decision library, pp. 109–121). Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Thomason, R., & Gupta, A. (1980). A theory of conditionals in the context of branching time. Philosophical Review, 89(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Uckelman, J., & Endris, U. (2008). Preference modeling by weighted goals with max aggregation. In G. Brewka & J. Lang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-2008) (pp. 579–587). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 129–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    van Benthem, J. (2011a). Exploring a theory of play. In K. R. Apt (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-2011) (pp. 12–16). ACM.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    van Benthem, J. (2011b). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Provide both conceptual and technical introduction to dynamic epistemic logic, as well as its applications.]Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    van Benthem, J., & Grossi, D. (2011). Normal forms for priority graphs. Technical Report PP-2011-02, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    van Benthem, J., Grossi, D., & Liu, F. (2010). Deontics = betterness + priority. In G. Governatori & G. Sartor (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, DEON 2010 (LNAI, Vol. 6181, pp. 50–65). Springer.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Frolova, A. (1993). Changing preferences. Technical Report, CS-93-10, Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    van der Torre, L. (1997) Reasoning about obligations: Defeasibility in preference-based deontic logic. Ph.D. thesis, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    van der Torre, L., & Tan, Y. (1999). An update semantics for deontic reasoning. In P. McNamara & H. Prakken (Eds.), Norms, logics and information systems (pp. 73–90). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    von Wright, G. (1963). The logic of preference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Foundational work in preference logic]Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Xue Y., & Parikh, R. (2015). Strategic belief updates through influence in a communit. Studies in Logic, 8,124–143.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Yamada, T. (2008). Logical dynamics of some speech acts that affect obligations and preferences. Synthese, 165(2), 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Yamada, T. (2010). Scorekeeping and dynamic logics of speech acts. Manuscript, Hokkaido University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Tsinghua University – The University of Amsterdam JRC for LogicBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations