A generalized distance function for preferential choices.

Many cognitive theories of judgement and decision making assume that choice options are evaluated relative to other available options. The extent to which the preference for one option is influenced by other available options will often depend on how similar the options are to each other, where similarity is assumed to be a decreasing function of the distance between options. We examine how the distance between preferential options that are described on multiple attributes can be determined. Previous distance functions do not take into account that attributes differ in their subjective importance, are limited to two attributes, or neglect the preferential relationship between the options. To measure the distance between preferential options it is necessary to take the subjective preferences of the decision maker into account. Accordingly, the multi-attribute space that defines the relationship between options can be stretched or shrunk relative to the attention or importance that a person gives to different attributes describing the options. Here, we propose a generalized distance function for preferential choices that takes subjective attribute importance into account and allows for individual differences according to such subjective preferences. Using a hands-on example, we illustrate the application of the function and compare it to previous distance measures. We conclude with a discussion of the suitability and limitations of the proposed distance function.

[1]  Mark K. Johansen,et al.  Exemplar-based accounts of "multiple-system" phenomena in perceptual categorization. , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[3]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. , 2014, Psychological review.

[4]  Safa R. Zaki,et al.  Exemplar and prototype models revisited: response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  R. Nosofsky American Psychological Association, Inc. Choice, Similarity, and the Context Theory of Classification , 2022 .

[6]  J. Kruskal Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method , 1964 .

[7]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Who accepts Savage's axiom? , 1974 .

[9]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation , 2012, Adv. Decis. Sci..

[10]  Joel Huber,et al.  Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects , 1983 .

[11]  J. Kruskal Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[12]  M. Forster,et al.  Key Concepts in Model Selection: Performance and Generalizability. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[13]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice , 2006 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[15]  D. H. Wedell,et al.  Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[16]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[17]  N. Chater,et al.  Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. , 2010, Psychological review.

[18]  Sudeep Bhatia,et al.  Associations and the accumulation of preference. , 2013, Psychological review.

[19]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[20]  J D Carroll,et al.  MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING , 2002 .

[21]  Douglas H. Wedell Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[22]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

[23]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[24]  Jiyun Li,et al.  Theoretical developments in decision field theory: comment on Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater (2010). , 2010, Psychological review.

[25]  A. Rivlin,et al.  Economic Choices , 2001 .

[26]  Safa R. Zaki,et al.  Prototype and exemplar accounts of category learning and attentional allocation: a reassessment. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[28]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[29]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  A. Tversky Choice by elimination , 1972 .

[31]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[32]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  Goal Orientation and Consumer Preference for the Status Quo , 2004 .

[33]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  Incorporating Context Effects into a Choice Model , 2010 .

[34]  P. Suppes,et al.  Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology , 1976 .

[35]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.