IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice

  • J�rg Rieskamp
  • Jerome R. Busemeyer
  • Barbara A. Mellers

Most economists define rationality in terms of consistency principles. These principles place ?bounds? on rationality?bounds that range from perfect consistency to weak stochastic transitivity. Several decades of research on preferential choice has demonstrated how and when people violate these bounds. Many of these violations are interconnected and reflect systematic behavioral principles. We discuss the robustness of the violations and review the theories that are able to predict them. We further discuss the adaptive functions of the violations. From this perspective, choices do more than reveal preferences; they also reflect subtle, yet often quite reasonable, dependencies on the environment.

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:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by American Economic Association in its journal Journal of Economic Literature.

Volume (Year): 44 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Pages: 631-661

in new window

Handle: RePEc:aea:jeclit:v:44:y:2006:i:3:p:631-661
Note: DOI: 10.1257/jel.44.3.631
Contact details of provider: Web page:

More information through EDIRC

Order Information: Web:

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. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. " An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
  2. Timothy B. Heath & Subimal Chatterjee, 1995. "Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality Versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence," Post-Print hal-00670480, HAL.
  3. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
  4. Prelec, Drazen & Wernerfelt, Birger & Zettelmeyer, Florian, 1997. " The Role of Inference in Context Effects: Inferring What You Want from What Is Available," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 118-25, June.
  5. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
  6. Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-63, June.
  7. Huber, Joel & Puto, Christopher, 1983. " Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(1), pages 31-44, June.
  8. Wernerfelt, Birger, 1995. " A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(4), pages 627-33, March.
  9. Green, Jerry R & Jullien, Bruno, 1989. " Ordinal Independence in Nonlinear Utility Theory: Erratum," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 119, April.
  10. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
  11. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1999. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1j6814b3, University of California Transportation Center.
  12. John Leland, 2010. "Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7644, David K. Levine.
  13. 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.
  14. J. A. Hausman & D. A. Wise, 1976. "A Conditional Profit Model for Qualitative Choice: Discrete Decisions Recognizing Interdependence and Heterogeneous Preferences," Working papers 173, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  15. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
  16. Steven T. Berry, 1994. "Estimating Discrete-Choice Models of Product Differentiation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 25(2), pages 242-262, Summer.
  17. Daniel McFadden, 1998. "Rationality for Economists?," Working Papers 98-09-086, Santa Fe Institute.
  18. Wakker, Peter & Erev, Ido & Weber, Elke U, 1994. "Comonotonic Independence: The Critical Test between Classical and Rank-Dependent Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 195-230, December.
  19. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
  20. Heath, Timothy B & Chatterjee, Subimal, 1995. " Asymmetric Decoy Effects on Lower-Quality versus Higher-Quality Brands: Meta-analytic and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(3), pages 268-84, December.
  21. Schmidt, Peter & Strauss, Robert P, 1975. "Estimation of Models with Jointly Dependent Qualitative Variables: A Simultaneous Logit Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(4), pages 745-55, July.
  22. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
  23. James Levinsohn & Steven Berry & Ariel Pakes, 1999. "Voluntary Export Restraints on Automobiles: Evaluating a Trade Policy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 400-430, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jeclit:v:44:y:2006:i:3:p:631-661. 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: (Jane Voros)

or (Michael P. Albert)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.