Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect

Preferences inferred from choice are more likely to favor the alternative that is superior with respect to the prominent (most important or salient) attribute than are preferences inferred from matching (direct tradeoff) judgments. This prominence effect violates standard models of rational choice and complicates the task of measuring preferences. In this article, we propose a new task-goal hypothesis regarding the prominence effect: The prominent attribute receives more weight in tasks whose goal is to differentiate among options than in tasks whose goal is to equate options. We use this hypothesis to generalize the prominence effect beyond choice and matching to several additional tasks, including the choice-based matching and difference comparison methods that are widely employed in decision analysis. The results of three studies provide strong support for the task-goal account of the prominence effect and cast doubt on competing explanations. We discuss the implications of these findings for descriptive decision theory and for preference measurement in decision analysis, public policy, and marketing.

[1]  Philippe Delquié,et al.  Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: new evidence in preference assessment biases , 1993 .

[2]  I. Simonson,et al.  Price–Quality Trade-Offs in Choice Versus Matching: New Insights Into the Prominence Effect , 1998 .

[3]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Reason-based choice , 1993, Cognition.

[4]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? , 1991 .

[5]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect , 1995 .

[6]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Preference Reversals in Monetary and Life Expectancy Evaluations , 1995 .

[7]  G. W. Fischer.  Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models , 1995 .

[8]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Causes of Preference Reversal , 1990 .

[10]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[11]  Robin M. Hogarth,et al.  Insights in decision making : a tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn , 1990 .

[12]  Martin Weber,et al.  The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements , 1993 .

[13]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[14]  I. Simonson,et al.  Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice , 1994 .

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

[16]  P. Slovic.  The Construction of Preference , 1995 .

[17]  J. Hausman,et al.  Chapter I - On Contingent Valuation Measurement of Nonuse Values , 1993 .

[18]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[19]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

[20]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences , 1990 .

[21]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[22]  R. Dhar,et al.  Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods , 2000 .

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

[24]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

[25]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[26]  S. Hawkins,et al.  Information Processing Strategies in Riskless Preference Reversals: The Prominence Effect , 1994 .

[27]  J. Hausman,et al.  ON CONTINGENT VALUATION MEASUREMENT OF NONUSE VALUES , 1993 .

[28]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[29]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[30]  M. Shelly,et al.  HUMAN JUDGMENTS AND OPTIMALITY.. , 1966 .

[31]  Fox,et al.  Familiarity Bias and Belief Reversal in Relative Likelihood Judgment. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[32]  J. Payne,et al.  Product category familiarity and preference construction , 1998 .

[33]  Henry Montgomery,et al.  Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision Making* , 1983 .

[34]  M. Braga,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis , 2018, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..