Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:38:23.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Amos Tversky
Affiliation:
Professor of Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
Samuel Sattath
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University
Paul Slovic
Affiliation:
Founder and President of Decision Research and Professor of Psychology, University of Oregon
Sarah Lichtenstein
Affiliation:
Decision Research. Oregon
Paul Slovic
Affiliation:
Decision Research, Oregon
Get access

Summary

The relation of preference between acts or options is the key element of decision theory that provides the basis for the measurement of utility or value. In axiomatic treatments of decision theory, the concept of preference appears as an abstract relation that is given an empirical interpretation through specific methods of elicitation, such as choice and matching. In choice the decision maker selects an option from an offered set of two or more alternatives. In matching the decision maker is required to set the value of some variable to achieve an equivalence between options (e.g., what chance to win $750 is as attractive as 1 chance in 10 to win $2,500?).

The standard analysis of choice assumes procedure invariance: Normatively equivalent procedures for assessing preferences should give rise to the same preference order. Indeed, theories of measurement generally require the ordering of objects to be independent of the particular method of assessment. In classical physical measurement, it is commonly assumed that each object possesses a well-defined quantity of the attribute in question (e.g., length, mass) and that different measurement procedures elicit the same ordering of objects with respect to this attribute. Analogously, the classical theory of preference assumes that each individual has a well-defined preference order (or a utility function) and that different methods of elicitation produce the same ordering of options. To determine the heavier of two objects, for example, we can place them on the two sides of a pan balance and observe which side goes down.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×