Process descriptions of decision making

Svenson, Ola

doi:10.1016/0030-5073(79)90048-5

Cited by 542 publications

(233 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

230

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…similarity between the input and output variables). Another form of compatibility is that the qualitative response in choice is more compatible with a choice rule (such as the lexicographic rule; see Svenson, 1979), which renders quantitative weight ing of attributes unnecessary. In contrast, quantitative judgements are compatible with quantitative weighting.…”

Section: The Compatibility Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations

Selart

Montgomery

Romanus

et al. 1994

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A violation of procedure invariance in preference measurement is that the predominant or prominent attribute looms larger in choice than in a match ing task. In Experiment 1, this so-called prominence effect was demonstrated for choices between pairs of options, choices to accept single options, and preference ratings of single options. That is, in all these response modes the prominent attribute loomed larger than in matching. The results were replicated in Experiment 2, in which subjects chose between or rated their preference for pairs of options which were matched to be equally attractive either in the same session or 1 week earlier. On the basis of these and previous results, it is argued that the prominence effect is a reliable pheno menon. However, none of several cognitive explanations which have been offered appears to be completely viable.

show abstract

Section: The Compatibility Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations

Selart

Montgomery

Romanus

et al. 1994

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…subjects' responses). Since the responses are qualitative in choice, they should be more compatible with a lexicographic choice rule (Svenson, 1979) which renders quantitative weighting of attributes unnecessary. In contrast, quantitative preference judgments are compatible with quantitative weighting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The judgment‐choice discrepancy: Noncompatibility or restructuring?

Montgomery¹,

Selart²,

Gärling³

et al. 1994

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study examines the relative merits of a noncompatibility and a restructuring explanation of the recurrent empirical finding that a prominent attribute looms larger in choices than in judgments. Pairs of equally attractive options were presented to 72 undergraduates who were assigned to six conditions in which they performed (1) only preference judgments or choices, (2) preference judgments or choices preceded by judgments of attractiveness of attribute levels, or (3) preference judgments or choices accompanied by think‐aloud reports. The results replicated the prominence effect for choices, but a prominence effect was also found for preference judgments. In accordance with the restructuring explanation, the think‐aloud protocols indicated that options were more often restructured in choices than in preference judgments. However, restructuring could not explain the prominence effect observed for preference judgments. A modified compatibility hypothesis is offered as an alternative explanation.

show abstract

“…The CDC models incorporate a number of well-known choice heuristics (cf. Svenson, 1979) and allow the development of stochastic versions. For example, with an ordinal-scale level for the evaluations and with features being processed in pairs, the lexicographic rule is obtained if the critical value is set to one; with large critical value the majority rule is approached.…”

Section: Termination and Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The general model and the global model tests ( Table 3-2) that were previously mentioned include assumptions about the evaluation and aggregation for both named and described alternatives: The often used differentiation between cardinal and ordinal values and comparisons is made (Svenson, 1979). In either case, a counter or summation operation-as in many choice heuristics-is assumed as an aggregation rule.…”

Section: Evaluation and Aggregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Choice Processes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation

Albert¹,

Aschenbrenner²,

Schmalhofer³

1989

Attitudes and Behavioral Decisions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fishbein and Ajzerfs (1975) theory of reasoned action is currently the most successful and much discussed theory in attitude-behavior research. Although the theory is well established for predicting behavior in various contexts, its central assumption of a static attitude-behavior intention relation appears questionable when recent results of cognitively oriented decision research are considered. This assumption is dynamically reformulated in order to model the cognitive processes in binary choice. The resulting criterion-dependent choice models assume a sequential evaluative processing of the alternatives' attributes until enough evidence in favor of one alternative is accumulated. Within this general framework, specific models distinguish between internally (memory) and externally (display) available information about the alternatives. The models and a series of experimental studies, which were specifically designed to investigate various aspects of the models, are comprehensively presented. Relations to other theories and consequences for attitude-behavior research are discussed.

show abstract

Process descriptions of decision making

Cited by 542 publications

References 34 publications

Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations

Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations

The judgment‐choice discrepancy: Noncompatibility or restructuring?

Cognitive Choice Processes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About