Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives

Contents:

Author Info

  • Seidl, C.
  • Traub, S.

    (Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research)

Abstract

This experimental study investigates the inuence of irrelevant or phantom al- ternatives on subjects' choices in sequential decision making. Using experimental data from 45 subjects, we found that irrelevant alternatives bear significant rele- vance for decision making. We observe that only 38% of our subjects make the same choice after two phantom alternatives, as compared with the same decision problem when analyzed from scratch. Even allowing for a natural error rate as high as 25%, we find that between 40% and 60% of our subjects are led astray by the presence of phantom alternatives. Testing then basic postulates of rational choice, we find moderate violations of contraction monotonicity and static preference consistency, and substantial viola- tions of dynamic preference consistency. Finally we find that subjects exhibiting rational choice behaviour are far less susceptible to dependence on irrelevant alternatives than subjects which violate rational choice behaviour. Rational choice behaviour is thus a good proxy for the independence of a subject's choices of irrelevant alternatives.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=3460
Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Richard Broekman)
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research in its series Discussion Paper with number 1996-91.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 1996
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dgr:kubcen:199691

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://center.uvt.nl

Related research

Keywords: Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives; Phantom Alternatives; Sequential Decision Making; Rational Choice; Multiattribute Decision Making;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
  2. Conlisk, John, 1988. "Optimization cost," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 213-228, April.
  3. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. " Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
  4. Johnson, Eric J & Meyer, Robert J, 1984. " Compensatory Choice Models of Noncompensatory Processes: The Effect of Varying Context," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 11(1), pages 528-41, June.
  5. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-55, December.
  6. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
  7. Peter H. Farquhar & Anthony R. Pratkanis, 1993. "Decision Structuring with Phantom Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1214-1226, October.
  8. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1989. " Probability and Juxtaposition Effects: An Experimental Investigation of the Common Ratio Effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 159-78, June.
  9. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. " Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
  10. Plott, Charles R & Levine, Michael E, 1978. "A Model of Agenda Influence on Committee Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(1), pages 146-60, March.
  11. Ratneshwar, Srinivasan & Shocker, Allan D & Stewart, David W, 1987. " Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(4), pages 520-33, March.
  12. RĂ¼diger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
  13. Harrison, Glenn W, 1994. "Expected Utility Theory and the Experimentalists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 223-53.
  14. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. " Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 158-74, September.
  15. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-61, April.
  16. Hey, John D & Orme, Chris, 1994. "Investigating Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1291-1326, November.
  17. Bettman, James R & Kakkar, Pradeep, 1977. " Effects of Information Presentation Format on Consumer Information Acquisition Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(4), pages 233-40, March.
  18. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. " The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Jih-Jeng Huang, 2012. "Further explanations for context effects: a perspective of ideal and reference points," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 281-290, January.
  2. Demuynck, Thomas, 2011. "The computational complexity of rationalizing boundedly rational choice behavior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(4-5), pages 425-433.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dgr:kubcen:199691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Richard Broekman).

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.