Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect.

Ss expressed preferences between pairs of decision alternatives characterized by 2 attributes, for example, price and quality. They were more likely to prefer the alternative that was superior with respect to the most important attribute when making choices and strength-of-preference judgments than when making matching and monetary-equivalent value judgments. Rating scale judgments fell between these two extremes. These findings extend the previously established choice versus matching prominence effect (Tversky, Sattath, & Slovic, 1988) to a more general qualitative versus quantitative task prominence effect. The data support the strategy-compatibility interpretation of the prominence effect. They also show that in riskless decision making, the generalized prominence effect is much stronger than simple scale-compatibility effects

[1]  P. Fitts,et al.  S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[3]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas , 1973 .

[4]  Jeff T. Casey.  Reversal of the preference reversal phenomenon , 1991 .

[5]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. , 1987 .

[6]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[7]  William M. Goldstein,et al.  Judgments of Relative Importance in Decision Making: The Importance of Interpretation and the Interpretation of Importance , 1991 .

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

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

[10]  C. Plott,et al.  Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon , 1979 .

[11]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Data Analysis and Regression , 1978 .

[12]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[13]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

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

[15]  Shelby J. Haberman,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimates in Exponential Response Models , 1977 .

[16]  P. Slovic.  Choice Between Equally Valued Alternatives. , 1975 .

[17]  W. Goldstein.  Judgments of relative importance in decision making: Global vs local interpretations of subjective weight , 1990 .

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

[19]  S E Fienberg,et al.  Risk preferences for gains and losses in multiple objective decision making , 1986 .

[20]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice , 1976 .

[21]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[22]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Multidimensional utility models for risky and riskless choice , 1976 .

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

[24]  John W. Tukey,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis. , 1979 .

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

[26]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Methods of information integration theory , 1982 .

[27]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

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