IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v66y2009i2p149-179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Collapsing Choice Theory: Dissociating Choice and Judgment in Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey Stibel
  • Itiel Dror
  • Talia Ben-Zeev

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey Stibel & Itiel Dror & Talia Ben-Zeev, 2009. "The Collapsing Choice Theory: Dissociating Choice and Judgment in Decision Making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 149-179, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:66:y:2009:i:2:p:149-179
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-007-9094-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-007-9094-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-007-9094-7?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoelzl, Erik & Loewenstein, George, 2005. "Wearing out your shoes to prevent someone else from stepping into them: Anticipated regret and social takeover in sequential decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 15-27, September.
    2. Sloman, Steven A. & Over, David & Slovak, Lila & Stibel, Jeffrey M., 2003. "Frequency illusions and other fallacies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 296-309, July.
    3. Stanley F. Biggs & Jean C. Bedard & Brian G. Gaber & Thomas J. Linsmeier, 1985. "The Effects of Task Size and Similarity on the Decision Behavior of Bank Loan Officers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(8), pages 970-987, August.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Wei James Chen & Joseph Tao-yi Wang, 2020. "A modified Monty Hall problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 151-156, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard B. Anderson & Laura Marie Leventhal & Don C. Zhang & Daniel Fasko, Jr. & Zachariah Basehore & Christopher Gamsby & Jared Branch & Timothy Patrick, 2019. "Belief bias and representation in assessing the Bayesian rationality of others," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:140-152 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Gensch, Dennis H. & Soofi, Ehsan S., 1995. "An information-theoretic two-stage, two-decision rule, choice model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 271-280, March.
    4. Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Belton, Ian & Wright, George & Sissons, Aileen & Bolger, Fergus & Crawford, Megan M. & Hamlin, Iain & Taylor Browne Lūka, Courtney & Vasilichi, Alexandrina, 2021. "Delphi with feedback of rationales: How large can a Delphi group be such that participants are not overloaded, de-motivated, or disengaged?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    6. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    7. Shira Elqayam & David Over, 2012. "Probabilities, beliefs, and dual processing: the paradigm shift in the psychology of reasoning," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 11(1), pages 27-40, June.
    8. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.
    9. Soheil Hooshangi & George Loewenstein, 2018. "The Impact of Idea Generation and Potential Appropriation on Entrepreneurship: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 64-82, January.
    10. Christine Ohlert & Barbara Weißenberger, 2015. "Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-80, April.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:108-117 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Schneider, Arnold, 2018. "Studies on the impact of accounting information and assurance on commercial lending judgments," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 63-74.
    13. Andreas Glöckner & Christoph Engel, 2013. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence‐Based Reasoning," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 230-252, June.
    14. George, Jennifer M. & Dane, Erik, 2016. "Affect, emotion, and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 47-55.
    15. Andrea Bellucci & Alexander Borisov & Alberto Zazzaro, 2011. "Do Male and Female Loan Officers Differ in Small Business Lending? A Review of the Literature," Contributions to Economics, in: Giorgio Calcagnini & Ilario Favaretto (ed.), The Economics of Small Businesses, chapter 0, pages 195-219, Springer.
    16. William P. Neace & Steven Michaud & Lauren Bolling & Kate Deer & Ljiljana Zecevic, 2008. "Frequency formats, probability formats, or problem structure? A test of the nested-sets hypothesis in an extensional reasoning task," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 140-152, February.
    17. Cristofaro, Matteo, 2019. "The role of affect in management decisions: A systematic review," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 6-17.
    18. van de Ven, Niels & Zeelenberg, Marcel, 2011. "Regret aversion and the reluctance to exchange lottery tickets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 194-200, February.
    19. Peter Todd & Izak Benbasat, 1999. "Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 356-374, December.
    20. Goodwin, Paul, 2015. "When simple alternatives to Bayes formula work well: Reducing the cognitive load when updating probability forecasts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1686-1691.
    21. Lee, Hanjoon & Herr, Paul M. & Kardes, Frank R. & Kim, Chankon, 1999. "Motivated Search: Effects of Choice Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowledge on Information Acquisition and Use," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 75-88, May.
    22. Tyszka, Tadeusz, 1998. "Two Pairs of Conflicting Motives in Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 189-211, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    choice; judgment; working memory; mental models; decision making; monty hall dilemma; D70; D80; D81; D84;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:kap:theord:v:66:y:2009:i:2:p:149-179. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.