Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations

Selart, Marcus; Montgomery, Henry; Romanus, Joakim; Gärling, Tommy

doi:10.1080/09541449408406523

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, it predicted a prominence effect in both choice and preference rating judgment. As revealed by previous research (Fischer & Hawkins, 1993;Montgomery et al, 1994;Selart et al, 1994), an effect was found also for preference ratings. In these studies, a large variety of problems were used.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…In choice tasks subjects placed more weight on this attribute than they did in a matching task in which they were required to make the two options equally attractive. Subsequently, this "prominence" effect has been replicated by Montgomery, Gärling, Lindberg, and Selart (1990); Montgomery, Selart, Gärling, and Lindberg (1994); and Selart, Montgomery, Romanus, and Gärling (1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…In order to determine whether there were differences in restructuring in the different conditions, subjects' written explanations/justifications were treated similarly as think-aloud data in previous studies Selart et al, 1994). Briefly, the written explanations/justifications were first partitioned into statements which normally corresponded to a sentence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, the idea of strategy compatibility has also proved to have weaknesses. For instance, it has been shown that both choices as well as several kinds of judgments evoke a prominence effect (Fischer & Hawkins, 1993;Selart et al, 1994) A different perspective on compatibility takes as its point of departure the information structure of judgments and decisions , Selart, 1994a, 1994b. From this point of view, it is assumed that the prominence effect is due to a lack of compatibility between the required output from subjects and the structure of information in input.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice

Selart

1996

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of different response modes has been found to influence how subjects evaluate pairs of alternatives described by two attributes. It has been suggested that judgments and choices evoke different kinds of cognitive processes, leading to an overweighing of the prominent attribute in choice (Tversky, Sattath, & Slovic, 1988; Fischer & Hawkins, 1993). Four experiments were conducted to compare alternative cognitive explanations of this so-called prominence effect in judgment and choice. The explanations investigated were the structure compatibility hypothesis and the restructuring hypothesis. According to the structure compatibility hypothesis, it was assumed that the prominence effect is due to a lack of compatibility between the required output from subjects and the structure of information in input. The restructuring hypothesis stated that the decision maker uses mental restructuring operations on a representation of decision options to make the options more clearly differentiated. In Experiment 1, a matching procedure was used to provide pairs of equally attractive options (medical treatments) for the following experiments. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, preferences were elicited with two different response modes, choice and preference rating. Value ranges on the prominent and nonprominent attributes were manipulated to test the structure compatibility hypothesis. Accountability was also subject to manipulation as it was assumed to stimulate restructuring. Since the prominence effect was not restricted to choices, and effects of value ranges were obtained but not of accountability, the results were interpreted in line with the structure compatibility hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice

Selart

1996

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the prominence effect, Jane would, out of two alternatives, choose the alternative that is better on the more important attribute but worse on less important attribute, although the two alternatives have been matched to be equal in attractiveness. Similarly, Montgomery and colleagues found that the prominence effect takes place not only in choices but also in attractiveness evaluations (Montgomery, Selart, Gärling, & Lindberg, 1994;Selart, Gärling, & Montgomery, 1998;Selart, Montgomery, Romanus, & Gärling, 1994). The prominence effect implies that the more important attributes will loom larger in both choices and attractiveness evaluations compared to matching tasks.…”

Section: Something Borrowedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Strategies: Something Old, Something New, and Something Borrowed

Kerimi¹

2011

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this thesis, some old decision strategies are investigated and a new one that furthers our understanding of how decisions are made is introduced. Three studies are presented. In Study I and II, strategies are investigated in terms of inferences and in Study III, strategies are investigated in terms of preferences. Inferences refer to decisions regarding facts, e.g., whether a patient has a heart disease or not. Preferences refer to decision makers' personal preferences between different choice alternatives, e.g., which flat out of many to choose. In all three studies, both non-compensatory strategies and compensatory strategies were investigated. In compensatory strategies, a high value in one attribute cannot compensate for a low value in another, while in non-compensatory strategies such compensation is possible. Results from Study I showed that both compensatory (logistic regression) and noncompensatory (fast and frugal) strategies make inferences equally well, but logistic regression strategies are more frugal (i.e., use fewer cues) than the fast and frugal strategies. Study II showed that the results were independent of the degree of expertise. The good inferential ability of both noncompensatory and compensatory strategies suggests there might be room for a strategy that can combine the strengths of the two. Study III introduces such a strategy, the Concordant-ranks (CR) strategy. Results from Study III showed that choices and attractiveness evaluations followed this new strategy. This strategy dictates a choice of an alternative with concordant ranks between attribute values and attribute weights when alternatives are about equally attractive. CR also serves as a proxy for finding the alternative with the shortest distance to an ideal. The CR strategy combines the computational simplicity of non-compensatory strategies with the superior information integration ability of compensatory strategies.

show abstract

Compatibility and the use of information processing strategies

Selart

Gärling

Montgomery

1998

J. Behav. Decis. Making

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a prominent attribute looms larger in one response procedure than in another, a violation of procedure invariance occurs. A hypothesis based on compatibility between the structure of the input information and the required output was tested as an explanation of this phenomenon. It was also compared with other existing hypotheses in the field. The study had two aims: (1) to illustrate the prominence effect in a selection of preference tasks (choice, acceptance decisions, and preference ratings); (2) to demonstrate the processing differences in a matching procedure versus the selected preference tasks. Hence, verbal protocols were collected in both a matching task and in subsequent preference tasks. Silent control conditions were also employed. The structure compatibility hypothesis was confirmed in that a prominence effect obtained in the preference tasks was accompanied by a lower degree of attention to the attribute levels in these tasks. Furthermore, as predicted from the structure compatibility hypothesis, it was found that fewer comparisons between attribute levels were performed in the preference tasks than in the matching task. It was therefore concluded that both these processing differences may explain the occurrence of the prominence effects. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Violations of procedure invariance in preference measurement: Cognitive explanations

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice

Structure Compatibility and Restructuring in Judgment and Choice

Decision Strategies: Something Old, Something New, and Something Borrowed

Compatibility and the use of information processing strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About