IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2108.03280.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A characterization of lexicographic preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Mridu Prabal Goswami
  • Manipushpak Mitra
  • Debapriya Sen

Abstract

This paper characterizes lexicographic preferences over alternatives that are identified by a finite number of attributes. Our characterization is based on two key concepts: a weaker notion of continuity called 'mild continuity' (strict preference order between any two alternatives that are different with respect to every attribute is preserved around their small neighborhoods) and an 'unhappy set' (any alternative outside such a set is preferred to all alternatives inside). Three key aspects of our characterization are: (i) use of continuity arguments, (ii) the stepwise approach of looking at two attributes at a time and (iii) in contrast with the previous literature, we do not impose noncompensation on the preference and consider an alternative weaker condition.

Suggested Citation

  • Mridu Prabal Goswami & Manipushpak Mitra & Debapriya Sen, 2021. "A characterization of lexicographic preferences," Papers 2108.03280, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2108.03280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.03280
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    2. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Working Papers 2006.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. John Geanakoplos, 2005. "Three brief proofs of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(1), pages 211-215, July.
    4. Peter C. Fishburn, 1975. "Axioms for Lexicographic Preferences," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(3), pages 415-419.
    5. Bossert Walter & Pattanaik Prasanta K. & Xu Yongsheng, 1994. "Ranking Opportunity Sets: An Axiomatic Approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 326-345, August.
    6. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834.
    7. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    8. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    9. Chistyakov, V. & Chumakova, K., 2018. "Restoring Indifference Classes via Ordinal Numbers under the Discrete Leximin and Leximax Preference Orderings," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 39(3), pages 12-31.
    10. Mitra, Manipushpak & Sen, Debapriya, 2014. "An alternative proof of Fishburn’s axiomatization of lexicographic preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 168-170.
    11. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    12. Michael Yee & Ely Dahan & John R. Hauser & James Orlin, 2007. "Greedoid-Based Noncompensatory Inference," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 532-549, 07-08.
    13. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    14. Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Working Papers 2006.128, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    16. Ariel Rubinstein, 2012. "Lecture Notes in Microeconomic Theory: The Economic Agent Second Edition," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 2, number 9742.
    17. Mina Bahrampour & Joshua Byrnes & Richard Norman & Paul A. Scuffham & Martin Downes, 2020. "Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 983-992, September.
    18. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    19. Scott, Anthony, 2002. "Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 383-398, June.
    20. Petri, Henrik & Voorneveld, Mark, 2016. "Characterizing lexicographic preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 54-61.
    21. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2013. "Why Do Simple Heuristics Perform Well in Choices with Binary Attributes?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 327-340, December.
    22. Leong, Waiyan & Hensher, David A., 2012. "Embedding multiple heuristics into choice models: An exploratory analysis," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 131-144.
    23. Konstantinos V. Katsikopoulos, 2011. "Psychological Heuristics for Making Inferences: Definition, Performance, and the Emerging Theory and Practice," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 10-29, March.
    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. Petri, Henrik, 2020. "Lexicographic probabilities and robustness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 426-439.

    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. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, September.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:403-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Rulleau, Bénédicte & Dachary-Bernard, Jeanne, 2012. "Preferences, rational choices and economic valuation: Some empirical tests," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 198-206.
    4. Petri, Henrik & Voorneveld, Mark, 2016. "Characterizing lexicographic preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 54-61.
    5. Pande, Shashwat M. & Papamichail, K. Nadia & Kawalek, Peter, 2021. "Compatibility effects in the prescriptive application of psychological heuristics: Inhibition, Integration and Selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 295(3), pages 982-995.
    6. Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi, 2007. "Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 380-399, 05-06.
    7. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:200-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    11. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "An analysis of process-tracing research on consumer decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-320.
    12. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    13. Galassi, Veronica & Madlener, Reinhard, 2014. "Identifying Business Models for Photovoltaic Systems with Storage in the Italian Market: A Discrete Choice Experiment," FCN Working Papers 19/2014, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    14. Mylene Lagarde, 2013. "Investigating Attribute Non‐Attendance And Its Consequences In Choice Experiments With Latent Class Models," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(5), pages 554-567, May.
    15. Shino Takayama & Akira Yokotani, 2017. "Social choice correspondences with infinitely many agents: serial dictatorship," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(3), pages 573-598, March.
    16. Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V., 2016. "On the role of psychological heuristics in operational research; and a demonstration in military stability operationsAuthor-Name: Keller, Niklas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1063-1073.
    17. Karniouchina, Ekaterina V. & Moore, William L. & van der Rhee, Bo & Verma, Rohit, 2009. "Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(1), pages 340-348, August.
    18. Anja Dieckmann & Katrin Dippold & Holger Dietrich, 2009. "Compensatory versus noncompensatory models for predicting consumer preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 200-213, April.
    19. Bremer, Lucas & Heitmann, Mark & Schreiner, Thomas F., 2017. "When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 516-535.
    20. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    21. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C00 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - General - - - General
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2108.03280. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.