Worth-based choice: giving an offered smaller pear an even greater fictional value

Abstract

Choices between options represented in a multidimensional space, in which each dimension signifies a distinct attribute describing the objects, are presumably guided by the principle of value maximization. However, the current study assumes that in a real-world setting, those who are able to imagine things that do not actually exist could modify the multidimensional space by self-generating an unoffered but fictional dimension. We define the utility (Uv) assigned by the decision makers to the options on the offered/given dimension as value (v[x]) and the utility (Uw) on the self-generated/fictional dimension as worth (w[xc]). Our series of experiments demonstrated that an option with a greater value established strictly on that given set of dimensions might not necessarily be chosen (which contradicted the principle of value maximization). Choosing an option with less value (i.e. giving away the bigger pear) behavior can be described and explained by the “worth-based choice” approach, as people behave to select the option with the highest worth rather than that with the highest value. We are optimistic that the resulting findings will facilitate our understanding of the beauty of such a “one step further” choice and assist us in understanding the following: the ability to further generate a fictional dimension and to assign a delayed utility (worth) to the options on the fictional dimension, and to make a worth-based choice, which could eventually be taken as the operational definition to measure the degree of “fiction-generating ability”, as proposed by Harari (2014).

Delay to Deal: Bargaining with Indivisibility and Round-Dependent Transfer

“…Also, the parity of k can answer who made the final choice, obtaining the good and paying the transfer. This question is particularly important if the transfer is a worth-based, imaginary utility, for example, the moral value in the story of Kong Rong, but is less crucial if the transfer is substantial [18]. We find that when p is close to 1, the parity of k exhibits some chaotic behavior, which may come from the non-linearity of the payoffs, and the fact that lim p→1 − k = +∞.…”

“…Under this premise, let us examine a game in which two identical players haggle over a pear that cannot be divided. Following Zheng et al [18], the winner obtains the pear, but endures a social loss since they did not attempt to relinquish the fruit to their competitor. The loser does not receive a physical reward, but earns social recognition morally.…”

Asymmetrical Property of the Subproportionality of Weighting Function in Prospect Theory: Is It Real and How Can It Be Achieved?

“…Thus, we can obtain a clear understanding of which group of properties or effects can exert influence on individuals' risky choices by shifting the perceived relative differences between the two options in the probability dimension (∆ Probability Op, Po ), or which group of properties or effects can exert influence on individuals risky choices by changing the perceived relative difference between the two options in the outcome dimension (∆ Outcome Op, Po ), from the perspective of decision strategy. Based on such classification and prediction, the equate-to-differentiate model (the predictions of this model are based on non-compensatory and dimensional characterizations; for the extension of its intra-dimensional strategy to a self-generated/fictional dimension, see Zheng, et al [77] or Zhao, et al [78]) can theoretically make a timely contribution as an effective and accurate guide for people when making optimal risky choices.…”

Effects of self–other decision‐making on time‐based intertemporal choice

“…It seems that economic reasoning, CLT, participants' generosity, and social value theory can all provide a reasonable explanation, but which one is suitable for the self–other difference in time‐based intertemporal choice? In our view, the participants will always carry out effective actions for achieving rewards and avoiding punishments regardless of whether they make decisions for themselves or others (Zhao et al, 2018; Zheng et al, 2019). Thus, we proposed Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis Participants who decide for others consider that the gain of the SS option is greater than that of the LL option, whereas participants who decide for themselves consider that the gain of LL is greater than that of the SS option in time‐based intertemporal choice.…”