IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v39y1993i11p1382-1395.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inconsistent Trade-Offs Between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases

Author

Listed:
  • Philippe Delquié

    (Graduate School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin, Department of MSIS, CBA 5.202, Austin, Texas 78712-1175)

Abstract

One of the fundamental postulates of rational choice is that preferences manifested by an individual towards alternatives should only depend on the merits of these alternatives and not on extraneous, irrelevant factors. Violations of this basic principle, so-called preference reversals, have puzzled researchers for over twenty years and raised concerns about the use of preference modeling in decision analysis. The present work seeks to further determine the nature of these phenomena, in particular the role played by response mode in certain types of preference reversals. Hershey and Schoemaker (1985) found Probability and Certainty Equivalents to differ systematically and attributed this difference to a framing effect. Here, we generalize their experimental design to control for framing effects and study biases on a larger scope. Our results show that biases do not disappear in the absence of framing, instead they reveal a clear and pervasive bias occurring under more controlled experimental conditions than previously known: direct trade-offs between two attributes X and Y are biased depending on whether X is traded off against Y, or Y traded off against X. From among several hypotheses, the data lend support to the general principle of compatibility (Tversky et al. 1988; Slovic et al. 1990), which implies that an attribute receives more relative weight when it is used as "currency" in trading off.

Suggested Citation

  • Philippe Delquié, 1993. "Inconsistent Trade-Offs Between Attributes: New Evidence in Preference Assessment Biases," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(11), pages 1382-1395, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:39:y:1993:i:11:p:1382-1395
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.39.11.1382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.11.1382
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.39.11.1382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vetschera, Rudolf, 1996. "A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models," Discussion Papers, Series I 279, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.
    2. Anne Rozan, 2004. "Benefit Transfer: A Comparison of WTP for Air Quality between France and Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 295-306, November.
    3. 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," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    4. Kurt A. Carlson & Samuel D. Bond, 2006. "Improving Preference Assessment: Limiting the Effect of Context Through Pre-exposure to Attribute Levels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 410-421, March.
    5. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    6. Christopher Schwand & Rudolf Vetschera & Lea Wakolbinger, 2010. "The influence of probabilities on the response mode bias in utility elicitation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 395-416, September.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2013. "In search of a preferred preference elicitation method: A test of the internal consistency of choice and matching tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 126-140.
    8. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    9. Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Angela Robinson & Anne E. Spencer & José Luís Pinto-Prades & Judith A. Covey, 2017. "Exploring Differences between TTO and DCE in the Valuation of Health States," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 273-284, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & José Luis Pinto, 2000. "An experimental test of loss aversion and scale compatibility," Working Papers, Research Center on Health and Economics 467, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    14. Mario García Molina & Liliana Alejandra Chicaíza Becerra, 2013. "Felicidad:¿reemplazar o mejorar la utilidad subjetiva?," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, December.
    15. Sylvie M. C. van Osch & Anne M. Stiggelbout, 2008. "The construction of standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(1), pages 31-40, January.
    16. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier & Michele Garagnani, 2020. "Stochastic choice and preference reversals," ECON - Working Papers 370, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2021.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:39:y:1993:i:11:p:1382-1395. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.