Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Partition Dependence in Decision Analysis, Resource Allocation, and Consumer Choice

  • Conference paper
Experimental Business Research

Abstract

In this chapter we explore a wide range of judgment and decision tasks in which people are called on to allocate a scarce resource (e.g., money, choices, belief) over a fixed set of possibilities (e.g., investment opportunities, consumption options, events). We observe that in these situations people tend to invoke maximum entropy heuristics in which they are biased toward even allocation. Moreover, we argue that before applying these heuristics, decision makers subjectively partition the set of options into groups over which they apply even allocation. As a result, allocations vary systematically with the particular partition that people happen to invoke, a phenomenon called partition dependence. We review evidence for maximum entropy heuristics and partition dependence in the following domains: (1) decision analysis in which degree of belief and importance weights must be distributed among possible events and attributes, respectively; (2) managerial decision making in which money and other organizational resources are allocated among risky projects, divisions, and organizational stakeholders; and (3) consumer choice in which individuals make selections among various consumption goods and consumption time periods.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abdellaoui, M. (2000). “Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions.” Management Science, 46, 1497–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). “Inequity in social exchange.” In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariely, D. & Levav, J. (2000). “Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed.” Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardolet, D., Fox, C. R. & Lovallo, D. (2004). “Partition dependence in capital budgeting.” Unpublished data, Anderson School of Management, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). “The unbearable automaticity of being.” American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, M. & Yaari, M. (1993). “Judgments of distributive justice.” In B. A. Mellers and J. Baron (eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications, pp. 56–84. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benartzi, R. & Thaler, R. (2001). “Naïve diversification strategies in retirement saving plans.” American Economic Review, 91, 475–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. & Ofek, E. (1995). “Diversification’s effect on firm value.” Journal of Financial Economics, 37, 39–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T. (1996). “Making Hard Decisions (2nd ed.).” Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1985). “Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective.” New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1977). “How to use multiattribute utility theory for social decision making.” IEEE Trans Systems, Man, Cybernet., 7, 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., Damodaran, N., Laskey, K. & Lincoln, D. (1987). “Preferences for proxy attributes: The overweighting bias.” Management Science, 33, 198–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). “Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation.” J. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 330–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R. & Clemen, R. T. (2004). “Partition dependence in subjective probability assessment.” Unpublished manuscript, Anderson School of Management, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R. & Levav, J. (in press). “Partition-edit-count: Naïve extensional reasoning in judgment of conditional probability.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R., Ratner, R. K. & Lieb, D. (2004). “How subjective grouping of options influences choice and allocation: Diversification bias and the phenomenon of partition dependence.” Unpublished Manuscript, the Anderson School at UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2003). “Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty.” Psychological Science, 13, 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R. & Tversky, A. (1995). “Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585–603.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, C. R. & Weber, M. (2002). “Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance, and decision context.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 476–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, K. & Poterba, J. (1991). “Investor diversification and international equity markets.” American Economic Review, 81(2), 222–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. & Harvey, C. (2001). “The theory and practice of corporate finance: evidence from the field.” Journal of Financial Economics, 60, 187–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. & Srinivasan, V. (1978). “Conjoint analysis in consumer behavior: Status and outlook.” J. Consumer Res., 5, 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation.” In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinblatt, M. & M. Keloharju (2001). “How distance, language, and culture influence stockholdings and trades.” Journal of Finance, 56, 1053–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (1975). The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J. & Joyce, M. A. (1980). “What’s fair? It depends on how you phrase the question.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, C. & Tversky, A. (1991) Preference and beliefs; Ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5–28.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, G. (2001). “Familiarity breeds investment, Review of Financial Studies, 14, 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, G. & Jiang, W. (2004). The 1/n heuristic in 401(k) plans. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J. & Kunreuther, H. (1993). “Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, B. E. & Lehmann, D. R. (1991). “Modeling choice among assortments.” Journal of Retailing, 67(Fall), 274–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. pp. 49–81 in T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (eds.). Heuristics & Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. New York. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1994). “Choices, values and frames.” American Psychologist, 39, 341–350. (Reprinted as Ch. 1 in Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Choices, Values and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation, 2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk.” Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Keefer, D. L. Kirkwood, C. W. & Corner, J. L. (2004). Perspective on decision analysis applications, 1990–2001, Decision Analysis, 1, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., Renn, O. & von Winterfeldt, D., (August 1987). “Structuring Germany’s energy objectives.” Energy Policy, 352–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1991). “Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilka, M. & Weber, M. (2000). “Home-bias in International stock return expectations.” Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, 1, 176–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R. & Simon, H. A. (1985). “Why are some problems hard?: Evidence from the tower of Hanoi.” Cognitive Psychology, 17, 248–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, O. (1997). “Cash flow and investment: Evidence from internal capital markets.” Journal of Finance, 52, 83–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, T. & Fox, C. R. (2004). Naïve diversification and partition dependence in investment allocation decisions: An experimental investigation. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Mannheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, G. S. (1976). “The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations.” In Berkowitz, L., and Walster, E. (eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, 91–131. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. & Elster, J. (1992). Choice over time. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F. & Prelec, D. (1993). “Preferences for sequences of outcomes.” Psychological Review, 100, 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, L. (1982). “A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety-seeking behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAlister, L. & Pessemier (1982). “Variety-seeking behavior: An interdisciplinary review.” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Soc, H. G. & Tversky, A. (1982). “On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.” New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M. (1993). “Equality as a decision heuristic.” In Mellers, B. A. & Baron, J. (eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications. Cambridge series on judgment and decision making. (pp. 11–31). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M. & Schell, T. (1992). “Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making.” Acta Psychologica, 80(1–3), 311–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, G. & Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty, a Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T. (1962). “On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.” American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, R. K. & Kahn, B. K. (2002). “The Impact of Private versus Public Consumption on Variety-Seeking Behavior.” Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E. & Kahneman, D. (1999). “Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of variety.” Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. P. (1966). Distributive justice. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roch, S., Lane, J., Samuelson, C., Allison, S. & Dent, J. (2000). “Cognitive load and the equality heuristic: A two-stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 185–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich, Y. & Tversky, A. (1997). “Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory.” Psychological Review, 104, 406–415.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). “Status quo bias in decision making.” Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 1:1 (March), 7–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharfstein, D. S. (1999). The Dark side of internal capital markets II: evidence from diversified conglomerates, NBER working paper #6352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharfstein, D. & Stein, J. (2000). “The Dark side of internal capital markets: Divisional rent-seeking and inefficient investment.” Journal of Finance, 55(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • See, K. E. & Clemen, R. T. (2003). Psychological and organizational factors influencing the use of decision analysis. Working paper, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.

    Google Scholar 

  • See, K. E., Fox, C. R. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Partition dependence and learning in judgment under uncertainty. Unpublished manuscript, Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafir, E. B., Simonson, I. & Tversky, A. (1993). “Reason-based choice.” Cognition, 49 (October–November), 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, H. & Stulz, R. (1997). Are internal capital markets efficient, Ohio State University, working paper, No. 97-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1990). “The effect of purchase quantity and timing on variety-seeking behavior.” Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 150–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S., Rottenstreich, Y., Wisniewski, E., Hadjichristidis, C. & Fox, C. R. (2004). “Typical versus atypical unpacking and superadditive probability judgment.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30, 573–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spetzler, C. S. & Staël Von Holstein, C.-A. (1975). “Probability encoding in decision analysis.” Management Science, 22, 340–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1999). “Mental accounting matters.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1985). “Mental accounting and consumer choice.” Marketing Science, 4, 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1992). “Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1986). “Rational choice and the framing of decisions.” Journal of Business, 59, 251–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.” Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesan, M. (1973). “Cognitive consistency and novelty seeking.” In Scott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson (eds.), Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources (pp. 355–384). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, D. & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision Analysis in Behavioral Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. & Deneffe, D. (1996). “Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown.” Management Science, 42, 1131–1150.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. & Johnson-Laird, P. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1983). “An Empirical investigation on multi-attribute decision-making.” Chapter in Hansen, P. (ed.), Essays and Surveys on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M., Eisenführ, F. & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988). “The Effect of splitting attributes in multiattribute utility measurement.” Management Science, 34, 431–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaari, M. & Bar-Hillel, M. (1984). “On dividing justly.” Social Choice and Welfare, 1, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCLA Anderson School, 110 Westwood Plaza #D511, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1481

    Craig R. Fox & David Bardolet

  2. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, NC, 27708-0120

    Daniel Lieb

Authors
  1. Craig R. Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Bardolet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Lieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Rami Zwick

  2. Department of Management and Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 85721

    Amnon Rapoport

  3. Department of Economics, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Amnon Rapoport

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fox, C.R., Bardolet, D., Lieb, D. (2005). Partition Dependence in Decision Analysis, Resource Allocation, and Consumer Choice. In: Zwick, R., Rapoport, A. (eds) Experimental Business Research. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24244-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation