The Best of Times and the Worst of Times Are Interchangeable

We commonly determine the most preferred (best) and least preferred (worst) of a set of options, yet it is unclear whether the 2 choices are based on the same or different information. We examined best and worst choices using discrete choice tasks, in which participants selected either the best option from a set, the worst option, or selected both the best and the worst options. One experiment used perceptual judgments of area, and another used consumer preferences for various attributes of mobile phones. In both domains, we found that the task (best, worst, or best and worst) does not alter the preferences expressed for the best (respectively, the worst) option. We also observed that the choice probabilities were consistent with a single latent dimension—options that were frequently selected as best were infrequently selected as worst, and vice versa—both within and between respondents. A quantitative model of choice and response time provided convergent evidence on those relations, with model variants that assumed an inverse relationship between the estimated parameters for best and worst choices accounting well for the data. We conclude that the diverse types of best and worst choices that we studied can be conceived as opposing ends of a single continuous dimension rather than distinct latent entities. We discuss these results in the light of rather different results for accepting (e.g., purchasing) and rejecting (e.g., not purchasing) options from a set.

[1]  M. Kalish,et al.  The effect of feedback delay and feedback type on perceptual category learning: the limits of multiple systems. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[3]  D. Saville,et al.  Basic statistics and the inconsistency of multiple comparison procedures. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[4]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  OR PART OF THE FOLLOWING SOURCE ) : Type article Title On the interpretation of removable interactions : a survey of the field 33 years after Loftus , 2012 .

[5]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making , 1998 .

[7]  J. Louviere,et al.  Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety , 1992 .

[8]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[9]  T. Zandt,et al.  A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  J. Townsend,et al.  Fundamental derivations from decision field theory , 1992 .

[11]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  An Integrated Model of Discrete Choice and Response Time with Application to Conjoint Analysis , 2006 .

[12]  Yaacov Schul,et al.  The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decision , 1995 .

[13]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[14]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[15]  A. Daly,et al.  Handbook of Choice Modelling , 2014 .

[16]  Keith Wilcox,et al.  Choice, Rejection, and Elaboration on Preference-Inconsistent Alternatives , 2011 .

[17]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Decision bias and personnel selection strategies , 1987 .

[18]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The design and analysis of state-trace experiments. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[19]  W. Gilchrist,et al.  Statistical Modelling with Quantile Functions , 2000 .

[20]  Wen-Bin Chiou,et al.  Rejection or Selection: Influence of Framing in Investment Decisions , 2010, Psychological reports.

[21]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. , 2004, Psychological review.

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

[23]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Domain General Mechanisms of Perceptual Decision Making in Human Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  K. R. Ridderinkhof,et al.  Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  A. Inkeles,et al.  International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. , 1968 .

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

[27]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[28]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  Not Just for Consumers , 2013, Psychological science.

[29]  Yoav Ganzach,et al.  Attribute Scatter and Decision Outcome: Judgment versus Choice , 1995 .

[30]  Nick Chater,et al.  Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[32]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[33]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Prescreening of choice options in ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ decision‐making tasks , 2001 .

[34]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Integrating Cognitive Process and Descriptive Models of Attitudes and Preferences , 2014, Cogn. Sci..

[35]  Peter Goos,et al.  Obtaining more information from conjoint experiments by best-worst choices , 2010, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[36]  A. A. J. Marley,et al.  Models of best–worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options (profiles) , 2012 .

[37]  Casimir J. H. Ludwig,et al.  The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[39]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions , 1998 .

[40]  Ben R. Newell,et al.  Dimensions in data: testing psychological models using state-trace analysis , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  G. Loftus On interpretation of interactions , 1978 .

[42]  M. Kalish,et al.  The dimensionality of perceptual category learning: A state-trace analysis , 2010, Memory & cognition.

[43]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[45]  G. Loftus,et al.  Linear theory, dimensional theory, and the face-inversion effect. , 2004, Psychological review.

[46]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[47]  K. Kirsner,et al.  Discovering functionally independent mental processes: the principle of reversed association. , 1988, Psychological review.

[48]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[49]  Gideon Keren,et al.  Speakers' choice of frame in binary choice: Effects of recommendation mode and option attractiveness , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[50]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  A ballistic model of choice response time. , 2005, Psychological review.

[51]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Psychological research and theories on preferential choice , 2014 .

[52]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[53]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[54]  J. Townsend,et al.  Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic Connectionist Model of Decision Making , 2001 .

[55]  D. Bamber State-trace analysis: A method of testing simple theories of causation , 1979 .