Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect
AbstractPreferences inferred from choice are more likely to favor the alternative that is superior with respect to the prominent (most important or salient) attribute than are preferences inferred from matching (direct tradeoff) judgments. This prominence effect violates standard models of rational choice and complicates the task of measuring preferences. In this article, we propose a new task-goal hypothesisregarding the prominence effect: The prominent attribute receives more weight in tasks whose goal is to differentiate among options than in tasks whose goal is to equate options. We use this hypothesis to generalize the prominence effect beyond choice and matching to several additional tasks, including the choice-based matching and difference comparison methods that are widely employed in decision analysis. The results of three studies provide strong support for the task-goal account of the prominence effect and cast doubt on competing explanations. We discuss the implications of these findings for descriptive decision theory and for preference measurement in decision analysis, public policy, and marketing.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.
Volume (Year): 45 (1999)
Issue (Month): 8 (August)
multiattribute utility; preference assessment; preference reversals; prominence effect; task goals;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007.
"Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility,"
INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
- Han Bleichrodt & Jose María Abellán Perpiñán & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Méndez-Martínez, 2006. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Working Papers 06.19, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
- Han Bleichrodt & José María Abellán-Perpiñan & JoséLuis Pinto & Ildefonso Méndez-Martínez, 2005. "Resolving inconsistencies in utility measurement under risk: Tests of generalizations of expected utility," Economics Working Papers 798, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- José Lara Resende & George Wu, 2010. "Competence effects for choices involving gains and losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 109-132, April.
- Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
- Yves Alarie & Georges Dionne, 2005. "Testing Explanations of Preference Reversal: a Model," Cahiers de recherche 0510, CIRPEE.
- Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
- Fox, Craig R. & Levav, Jonathan, 2000. "Familiarity Bias and Belief Reversal in Relative Likelihood Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 268-292, July.
- Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Pallier, Christophe & Huron, Caroline, 2012. "When conflict induces the expression of incomplete preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 221(3), pages 593-602.
- Barlas, Sema, 2003. "When choices give in to temptations: Explaining the disagreement among importance measures," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 310-321, July.
- Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2009. "The informational content of the shape of utility functions: financial strategic behavior," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 83-90.
- David H. Krantz & Howard C. Kunreuther, 2007. "Goals and plans in decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 137-168, June.
- Eric Johnson & Simon Gaechter & Andreas Herrmann, 2006.
"Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion,"
2006-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Johnson, Eric J. & Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Andreas, 2006. "Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion," IZA Discussion Papers 2015, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Eric Johnson & Simon Gaechter & Andreas Herrmann, 2006. "Exploring the Nature of Loss Aversion," Discussion Papers 2006-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2003. "The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: Asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 342-359, March.
- Huber, Joel & Ariely, Dan & Fischer, Gregory, 2002. "Expressing Preferences in a Principal-Agent Task: A Comparison of Choice, Rating, and Matching," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 66-90, January.
- Marek Hudík, 2013. "When x Becomes x': Sameness and the Internal Consistency of Choice," ICER Working Papers 02-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
- Irwin, Julie R. & Baron, Jonathan, 2001. "Response Mode Effects and Moral Values," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 177-197, March.
- Willemsen, Martijn C. & Keren, Gideon, 2002. "Negative-based prominence: the role of negative features in matching and choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 643-666, July.
- Comerford, David A. & Ubel, Peter A., 2013. "Effort Aversion: Job choice and compensation decisions overweight effort," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 152-162.
- Rong Chen & Jianmin Jia, 2005. "Consumer Choices Under Small Probabilities: Overweighting or Underweighting?," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 5-18, January.
- Young, Diana L. & Goodie, Adam S. & Hall, Daniel B. & Wu, Eric, 2012. "Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(2), pages 179-188.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.