Skip to main content

Choice Basis, a Model for Multi-attribute Preference: some more Evidence

  • Chapter
Book cover Mathematical Psychology in Progress

Part of the book series: Recent Research in Psychology ((PSYCHOLOGY))

Abstract

Several models for riskless choice involving the concept of bounded rationality, have been presented and tested under various conditions. In the special case of a binary choice between alternatives characterized on several attributes, present models include essentially the maximin and maximax rules, the dominance rule, the conjunctive and disjunctive rules, the majority and the weighted set of differences rules, the choice by greatest attractiveness rule, the lexicographic, the minimum difference lexicographic and the lexicographic semi-order rules, the addition of utility differences and the sequential accumulation of differences rules. To account for expert’s information processing in a binary choice task, Barthélemy and Mullet (1986) proposed and tested a slightly more complex and flexible model, inspired by the work of Montgomery (1983). This model, called the moving basis heuristics, coordinates four types of rules: 1°) lexicographic rules, 2°) threshold rules, 3°) conjunctive rules, 4°) disjunctives rules. It builds on the principle that the dominance rule is used as a major one and that all the other rules are justused to obtain dominance structure as quickly as possible. Three basic principles are in fact involved in the model: (i) a parsimony principle, (ii) a reliability principle, (iii) a decidability principle. Empirical data supporting the model have been presented and discussed previously (Barthélemy and Mullet, 1986). In this paper we discuss the model in relation to other models and we present the results of three other experiments. The first two replicate the basic experiments; in the third one, experts’ verbal justifications are analyzed.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

  • Adelbratt T. & Montgomery H. (1980), Attractiveness of decision rules, Acta Psychologica, 45, 177–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschenbrenner K.M. Albert D. & Schmalhofer F. 1984 ), Stochastic choice heuristics, Acta Psychologica, 56, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschenbrenner K.M. & Kasubek (1978), Challenging the Cushing Syndrome: Multiattribute evaluation of cortisone drugs, O.B.H.P, 22, 216–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthélemy J.P. & Mullet (1986), Choice basis: A model for multiattribute preferences, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 39, 106–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman J.R. & Jacoby J. (1976), Patterns in consumer information acquisition, in B.B. Anderson (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 4, Chicago: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caritat M.J.A., marquis de Condorcet (1785), Essai de l’application de l’analyse à la probabilite des decisions rendues à la pluralite des voix, Paris (reprint, Chelsea publ. 6, New York, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs C.H. (1963), A Theory of Data, New York, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin (1980), Decision that might not to get, in T. Wallenstein (ed.) Cognition processes in choice and behavior, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrand V. & Montgomery H. (1984), Information search and evaluation processes in decision-making: A computer based process tracing study, Acta Psychologica 56, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes R.M. (1964), Social Selection based on multidimensional criteria, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 104–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debord B. (1987), Axiomatisation des procédures d’agrégation de préférences, Thesis, Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn M.J., Kleinmuntz D.N. & Kleinmuntz B. (1979), Linear regression and process tracing models of judgment, Psychological Review 86, 465–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P.C. (1974), Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: A survey, Management Science 20, 1442–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flament C. (1958), Analyse pluridimensionnelles des structures hierarchiques intransitives, Bulletin du C.E.R.P. 7, 171–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flament C. (1960a), Comportement de choix et échelle de mesure l: Etude théorique, Bulletin du C.E.R.P. 9, 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flament C. (1960b), Comportement de choix et échelle de mesure II: Etude expérimentale, Bulletin du C.E.R.P. 9, 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groner R., Groner M., & Bischof W. (1983), The role of heuristics in models of decision, in R.W. SCHOLZ (ed.) Decision Making under Uncertainty, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoog R. de & van der Wittenberg (1986), Decision justification, information structure and the choice of decision rules, in R.W. Bremmer, M. Jungermann, P. Lourens & G. Sevon (eds.) New Direction in Research on Decision Making, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber O. (1979), Non transitive multidimensional preferences: Theoretical analysis of a model, Theory and Decision 10, 147–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber O. (1983), The information presented and actually processed in a decision task, in P.C. Humphrey, O. Svenson & A. Vari (eds.): Analyzing and Aiding Decision Process, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber O. (1986), Decision making as a problem solving process, in R.W. Bremmer, M. Jungermann, P. Lourens & G. Sevon (eds.) New Direction in Research on Decision Making, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson E.J. & Payne J.W. (1985), Effort and accuracy in choice, Management Science 31, 395–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klayman J. (1982), Simulations of six decision strategies: Comparison of search patterns, processing characteristics, and response to task complexity, Chicago: Center for Dicision Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein N. (1983), Utility and decision strategies: A second look on the rational decision-maker, O.B.M.P 31, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz D.N (1986), Human decision processes: Heuristics and task structures, in P.A. Hancok (ed.) Human Factor Psychology, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee W. (1971), Decision theory and human behavior, NewYork: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes L. (1982), Toward a procedural theory of judgment, Madison: Human Information Processing Program, Technical Report 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • May K.O. (1954), Intransitivity, utility and the aggregation of preference patterns, Econometrica 22, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister D.W., Mitchell T.R. & Beach L.R. (1979), The contingency model for the selection of decision strategies: the empirical test of the effects of significance, accountability and reductibility, O.B.H.P 24, 228–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery H. (1977), A study of intransitivities preferences using a think-aloud procedure, in H. Jungermann, G. de ZEEUW (eds.) Decision Making and Change in Human Affairs, Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery H. (1983), Decision Rules and the search for a dominance structure: Toward a process model of decision-making, in P.C. Humphrey, O. Svenson & A. Vari (eds.): Analyzing and Aiding Decision Process, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery H. & Svenson O. (1976), On decision rules and information processing strategies for choices among multiattribute alternatives, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 17, 283–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullet E. (1984), The heuristics of a flexible choice basis, Paris: Service de Recherches de l’INETOP/CNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne J.W. (1982), Contingent Decision Behavior, Psychological Bulletin 92, 382–402. Raynard R. & Crozier R. (1983), Reasons given for risky judgment and choice: A comparison of three tasks, in P.C. Humphrey, O. Svenson & A. Vari (eds.): Analyzing and Aiding Decision Process, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo J.E. & Dosher B.A. (1976), Strategies for multiattributes binary choice, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalhofer F. & Gertzen H. (1986), Judgment as a component decision process for choosing between sequentially available alternatives, in R.W. Bremmer, M. Jungermann, P. Lourens & G. Sevon (eds.) New Direction in Research on Decision Making, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalhofer F. & Saffrich W. (1984), Effort-quality trade-off characteristics of selection information processing in binary choices, Paper presented at the 13th European Mathematical Psychology Meeting, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shugan S.M. (1980), The cost of thinking, Journal of Consumer Research 7, 99–111. Simon H.A. (1979), Models of Thought, New-Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P. (1967), Structural determinants of one utilization in judgment: A polarisation and adjustment model for the computation of weighted averages,unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillwell W.G., Seaver D.A. & Edwards W. (1981), A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making, O.B.H.P. 28, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson O. (1979), Process description of decision making, O.B.H.P 23, 86–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson O. (1983), Decision rules and information processing in decision making, in L.S. Sjöberg, T. Tyszka and J.A. WISZ (eds.): Human Decision Making, Bodafors: Bodaforlaget Doxa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A. (1969), Intransitivity of preferences, Psychological Review 76, 31–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1989 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barthélemy, J.P., Mullet, E. (1989). Choice Basis, a Model for Multi-attribute Preference: some more Evidence. In: Roskam, E.E. (eds) Mathematical Psychology in Progress. Recent Research in Psychology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83943-6_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83943-6_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-51686-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-83943-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics