Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-5zgkz Total loading time: 0.181 Render date: 2021-09-21T15:57:00.005Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

REASON-BASED CHOICE AND CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE: AN EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2016

Franz Dietrich
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics & CNRS, CES-Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne, Maison des Sciences Economiques, 106-112 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75647 Paris cedex 13, France; URL: .
Christian List
Affiliation:
Paris School of Economics & CNRS, CES-Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne, Maison des Sciences Economiques, 106-112 Boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75647 Paris cedex 13, France; URL: .

Abstract:

We introduce a ‘reason-based’ framework for explaining and predicting individual choices. The key idea is that a decision-maker focuses on some but not all properties of the options and chooses an option whose ‘motivationally salient’ properties he/she most prefers. Reason-based explanations can capture two kinds of context-dependent choice: (i) the motivationally salient properties may vary across choice contexts, and (ii) they may include ‘context-related’ properties, not just ‘intrinsic’ properties of the options. Our framework allows us to explain boundedly rational and sophisticated choice behaviour. Since properties can be recombined in new ways, it also offers resources for predicting choices in unobserved contexts.

Type
Symposium on Rational Choice and Philosophy
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

Bermudez, J. L. 2009. Decision Theory and Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. and Rangel, A.. 2009. Beyond revealed preference: choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124: 51104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharyya, A., Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y.. 2011. Choice, internal consistency and rationality. Economics and Philosophy 27: 123149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blow, L., Browning, M. and Crawford, I.. 2008. Revealed preference analysis of characteristics models. Review of Economic Studies 75: 371389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundell, R. 2005. How revealing is revealed preference? Journal of the European Economic Association 3: 211235.Google Scholar
Bossert, W. and Suzumura, K.. 2009. External norms and rationality of choice. Economics and Philosophy 25: 139152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. and Suzumura, K.. 2010. Consistency, Choice, and Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M., eds. 2004. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cherepanov, V., Feddersen, T. and Sandroni, A.. 2013. Rationalization. Theoretical Economics 8: 775800.Google Scholar
de Clippel, G. and Eliaz, K.. 2012. Reason-based choice: a bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects. Theoretical Economics 7: 125162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jongh, D. and Liu, F.. 2009. Preference, priorities and belief. In Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology, ed. Grüne-Yanoff, T. and Hansson, S. O., 85108. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2011. A model of non-informational preference change. Journal of Theoretical Politics 23: 145164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2013a. A reason-based theory of rational choice. Noûs 47: 104134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2013b. Where do preferences come from? International Journal of Game Theory 42: 613637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C.. 2016. Mentalism versus behaviourism in economics: a philosophy-of-science perspective. Economics and Philosophy 32. doi: 10.1017/S0266267115000462.Google Scholar
Gaertner, W. and Xu, Y.. 2004. Procedural choice. Economic Theory 24: 335349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and the ABC Research Group. 2000. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gold, N. and List, C.. 2004. Framing as path dependence. Economics and Philosophy 20: 253277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, W. M. 1980. A possible procedure for analysing quality differentials in the egg market. Review of Economic Studies 47: 843856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J., Payne, J. W. and Puto, C.. 1982. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research 9: 9098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalai, G., Rubinstein, A. and Spiegler, R.. 2002. Rationalizing choice functions by multiple rationales. Econometrica 70: 24812488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köszegi, B. and Rabin, M.. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 121: 11331165.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenman, J. 2011. Reasons for action: justification vs. explanation. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), ed. Zalta, E. N.. URL: <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/reasons-just-vs-expl/>.Google Scholar
Liu, F. 2010. Von Wright's ‘The Logic of Preference’ revisited. Synthese 175: 6988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, M., Manzini, P. and Mariotti, M.. 2012. A million answers to twenty questions: choosing by checklist. Journal of Economic Theory 147: 7192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, P. and Mariotti, M.. 2007. Sequentially rationalizable choice. American Economic Review 97: 18241839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, P. and Mariotti, M.. 2012. Moody choice. Working paper, University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
Masatlioglu, Y., Nakajima, D. and Ozbay, E. Y.. 2012. Revealed attention. American Economic Review 102: 21832205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, D. and Weinstein, S.. 2012. Preference based on reasons. Review of Symbolic Logic 5: 122147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P. 1991. Decision theory and folk psychology. In Foundations of Decision Theory, ed. Bacharach, M. and Hurley, S., 147175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Richter, M. 1971. Rational choice. In Preferences, Utility, and Demand, ed. Chipman, J. S.et al., 2958. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 2006. Lecture Notes in Microeconomic Theory: The Economic Agent. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salant, Y. and Rubinstein, A.. 2008. (A, f): choice with frames. Review of Economic Studies 75: 12871296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1948. Consumption theory in terms of revealed preferences. Economica 15: 243253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1993. Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica 61: 495521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, E., Simonson, I. and Tversky, A.. 1993. Reason-based choice. Cognition 49: 1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonson, I. 1989. Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research 16: 158174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzumura, K. and Xu, Y.. 2001. Characterizations of consequentialism and nonconsequentialism. Journal of Economic Theory 101: 423436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R.. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D.. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 10391061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Simonson, I.. 1993. Context-dependent preferences. Management Science 39: 11791189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varian, H. 2006. Revealed preference. In Samuelsonian Economics and the Twenty-First Century, ed. Szenberg, M., Ramrattan, L. and Gottesman, A. A., 99115. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Wright, G. H. 1963. The Logic of Preference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
20
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

REASON-BASED CHOICE AND CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE: AN EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

REASON-BASED CHOICE AND CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE: AN EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

REASON-BASED CHOICE AND CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE: AN EXPLANATORY FRAMEWORK
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *