When X Becomes Xʹ: Sameness and the Internal Consistency of Choice

The fact that any two choices are necessarily asynchronous raises the question of whether some alternative x at moment t remains the same alternative x at moment t + 1. It is argued that this question cannot be answered without taking into account the decision-maker’s perception of the choice problem. Consequently, an objective description of a choice problem is impossible for each description involves an interpretation. A definition of sameness is provided and an extension of the standard choice model is suggested. The problem of the possibility of different perceptions of the decision-maker and the observer is emphasized

[1]  E. Fehr,et al.  Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice—Recent Advances , 2011 .

[2]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Bad riddance or good rubbish? Ownership and not loss aversion causes the endowment effect. , 2009 .

[3]  Donald E. Brown HUMAN UNIVERSALS , 2008, Science.

[4]  C. Plott,et al.  Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory? , 2007 .

[5]  B. Bernheim,et al.  Toward Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics , 2007 .

[6]  C. Bicchieri The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms , 2005 .

[7]  Yusufcan Masatlioglu,et al.  Rational choice with status quo bias , 2005, J. Econ. Theory.

[8]  Craig R. M. McKenzie,et al.  Rational models as theories – not standards – of behavior , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  J. Bachevalier,et al.  Mechanisms of same/different abstract-concept learning by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[10]  D. Bouyssou,et al.  Utility Maximization, Choice and Preference , 2002 .

[11]  J. Vauclair,et al.  Judgment of conceptual identity in monkeys , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  M. Srinivasan,et al.  The concepts of ‘sameness’ and ‘difference’ in an insect , 2001, Nature.

[13]  D. Ariely,et al.  Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers , 2000 .

[14]  Roger K. R. Thompson,et al.  Categorical perception and conceptual judgments by nonhuman primates: the paleological monkey and the analogical ape , 2000, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect , 1999 .

[16]  A. Rubinstein Modeling Bounded Rationality , 1998 .

[17]  Amartya Sen,et al.  INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF CHOICE , 1993 .

[18]  R. J. Herrnstein,et al.  Levels of stimulus control: A functional approach , 1990, Cognition.

[19]  Daniel N. Osherson,et al.  Similarity and decision making , 1989 .

[20]  Stella Vosniadou,et al.  Similarity and analogical reasoning: a synthesis , 1989 .

[21]  D. Premack,et al.  Spontaneous transfer of matching by infant chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[22]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[23]  E. T.,et al.  Natural Kinds , 1988, Philosophy.

[24]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[25]  A A Wright,et al.  Pigeon memory: same/different concept learning, serial probe recognition acquisition, and probe delay effects on the serial-position function. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[27]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[28]  T. Zentall,et al.  Same/different concept learning in the pigeon: the effect of negative instances and prior adaptation to transfer stimuli. , 1978, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[29]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Intransitive Indifference in Preference Theory: A Survey , 1970, Oper. Res..

[30]  A. Klevorick,et al.  Judging quality by price, snob appeal, and the new consumer theory , 1970 .

[31]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. , 1958 .

[32]  R. Luce Semiorders and a Theory of Utility Discrimination , 1956 .

[33]  Friedrich A. von Hayek,et al.  The Counter-Revolution of Science , 1941 .

[34]  W. E. Armstrong The Determinateness of the Utility Function , 1939 .

[35]  N. Georgescu-Roegen The Pure Theory of Consumers Behavior , 1936 .

[36]  Yuval Salant,et al.  Eliciting Welfare Preferences from Behavioural Data Sets , 2012 .

[37]  Marek Hudík A Note oN Nozick ’ s Problem , 2011 .

[38]  Yuval Salant,et al.  c ○ 2008 The Review of Economic Studies Limited (A, f): Choice with Frames 1 , 2007 .

[39]  J. Pavlik Austrian Economics and the Problems of Apriorism , 2006 .

[40]  Agnès Blaye,et al.  Categorization and abstraction abilities in 3-year-old children: a comparison with monkey data , 2004, Animal Cognition.

[41]  J. Vauclair,et al.  Categorization of alphanumeric characters by Guinea baboons : within- and between-class stimulus discrimination , 1996 .

[42]  Noam Chomsky Language and Nature , 1995 .

[43]  M. Banaji,et al.  Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. , 1995, Psychological review.

[44]  L. Smith,et al.  The concept of same. , 1993, Advances in child development and behavior.

[45]  P. W. Holmes Transfer of matching performance in pigeons. , 1979, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[46]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[47]  Robert A. Pollak,et al.  Price Dependent Preferences , 1977 .

[48]  F. Hayek Elementist Going Up. (Book Reviews: The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology) , 1953 .

[49]  L. Mises,et al.  Human Action: A Treatise on Economics , 1949 .

[50]  T. Scitovszky Some Consequences of the Habit of Judging Quality by Price , 1944 .