Search

We provide novel support for Query Theory, a reason-based decision framework, extending it to multialternative choices and applying it to the classic phenomenon known as the attraction effect. In Experiment 1 (N = 261), we generalised the two key metrics used in Query Theory from binary to multialternative choices and found that reasons supporting the target option were generated earlier and in greater quantity than those supporting the competitor, as predicted by the theory. In Experiment 2 (N = 703), we investigated the causal relationships between reasoning and choices by exogenously manipulating the order in which participants generated their reasons. As predicted, the size of the attraction effect was a function of this query order manipulation. We also introduced a bidirectional reason coding protocol to measure the valence of reasons, which confirmed support for Query Theory. We suggest the Query Theory framework can be useful for studying the high-level deliberation processes behind multialternative choices., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Many experiments investigating different decision theories have relied heavily on pairwise choices between lotteries. These are easy to incentivise, but often yield only limited dichotomous information. This paper considers whether respondents' judgments about their strength of preference (SoP) for one alternative over another can usefully supplement standard choice data. We report extensive evidence that such judgments show sensitivity to variations in question format and parameter values in the directions we should expect, not only within-subject but also between-sample. We illustrate how such judgments can usefully supplement standard pairwise choice data and enrich our understanding of observed behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report an experimental study that aims to elicit monetary measures of strength of preference in choices involving pairs of risky prospects. Despite extensive testing to refine the instruments used, we find that these money measures are systematically biased upwards relative to subsequent binary choices. We discuss possible reasons for this bias and its broader implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Models of stochastic choice are intended to capture the substantial amount of noise observed in decisions under risk. We present an experimental test of one model, which many regard as the default-the Basic Fechner model. We consider one of the model's key assumptions-that the noise around the subjective value of a risky option is independent of other features of the decision problem. We find that this assumption is systematically violated. However the main patterns in our data can be accommodated by a more recent variant of the Fechner model, or within the random preference framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several experimental studies have reported that an otherwise robust regularity-the disparity between Willingness-To-Accept and Willingness-To-Pay-tends to be greatly reduced in repeated markets, posing a serious challenge to existing reference- dependent and reference- independent models alike. This article offers a new account of the evidence, based on the assumptions that individuals are affected by good and bad deals relative to the expected transaction price ( price sensitivity), with bad deals having a larger impact on their utility ( `bad-deal' aversion). These features of preferences explain the existing evidence better than alternative approaches, including the most recent developments of loss aversion models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]