A generalized distance function for preferential choices

被引:14
作者
Berkowitsch, Nicolas A. J. [1 ]
Scheibehenne, Benjamin [1 ]
Rieskamp, Joerg [1 ]
Matthaeus, Max [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basel, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland
基金
瑞士国家科学基金会;
关键词
distance; similarity; preferential choice; multi-attribute; decision-making; DECISION FIELD-THEORY; CONTEXT; SIMILARITY; EXEMPLAR; MODEL; ATTENTION; PROTOTYPE; ACCOUNTS;
D O I
10.1111/bmsp.12048
中图分类号
O1 [数学];
学科分类号
0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Many cognitive theories of judgement and decision making assume that choice options are evaluated relative to other available options. The extent to which the preference for one option is influenced by other available options will often depend on how similar the options are to each other, where similarity is assumed to be a decreasing function of the distance between options. We examine how the distance between preferential options that are described on multiple attributes can be determined. Previous distance functions do not take into account that attributes differ in their subjective importance, are limited to two attributes, or neglect the preferential relationship between the options. To measure the distance between preferential options it is necessary to take the subjective preferences of the decision maker into account. Accordingly, the multi-attribute space that defines the relationship between options can be stretched or shrunk relative to the attention or importance that a person gives to different attributes describing the options. Here, we propose a generalized distance function for preferential choices that takes subjective attribute importance into account and allows for individual differences according to such subjective preferences. Using a hands-on example, we illustrate the application of the function and compare it to previous distance measures. We conclude with a discussion of the suitability and limitations of the proposed distance function.
引用
收藏
页码:310 / 325
页数:16
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs
[2]   Rigorously Testing Multialternative Decision Field Theory Against Random Utility Models [J].
Berkowitsch, Nicolas A. J. ;
Scheibehenne, Benjamin ;
Rieskamp, Joerg .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-GENERAL, 2014, 143 (03) :1331-1348
[3]   Associations and the Accumulation of Preference [J].
Bhatia, Sudeep .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2013, 120 (03) :522-543
[4]  
Carroll J.D., 1974, CONT DEV MATH PSYCHO, V2, P57
[5]   MULTIDIMENSIONAL-SCALING [J].
CARROLL, JD ;
ARABIE, P .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1980, 31 :607-649
[6]   Goal orientation and consumer preference for the status quo [J].
Chernev, A .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 2004, 31 (03) :557-565
[7]   Key concepts in model selection: Performance and generalizability [J].
Forster, MR .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 44 (01) :205-231
[8]   Theoretical Developments in Decision Field Theory: Comment on Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater (2010) [J].
Hotaling, Jared M. ;
Busemeyer, Jerome R. ;
Li, Jiyun .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2010, 117 (04) :1294-1298
[9]   ADDING ASYMMETRICALLY DOMINATED ALTERNATIVES - VIOLATIONS OF REGULARITY AND THE SIMILARITY HYPOTHESIS [J].
HUBER, J ;
PAYNE, JW ;
PUTO, C .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1982, 9 (01) :90-98
[10]   MARKET BOUNDARIES AND PRODUCT CHOICE - ILLUSTRATING ATTRACTION AND SUBSTITUTION EFFECTS [J].
HUBER, J ;
PUTO, C .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, 1983, 10 (01) :31-44