The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching

Abstract Measuring and assessing people’s preferences is an intricate task that can be realized by different methods. Evidently, the different methods do not necessarily yield consistent results. In the present paper we examine the matching procedure and demonstrate inconsistencies within the method itself. It is shown that the inconsistencies stem from: (1) asymmetry in upward and downward matching (i.e., matching options by increasing or lowering values do not yield the same tradeoffs) and (2) participants’ tendency to match (adjust) the options such that they become more similar, eventually facilitating the choice process. Matching is the most straightforward method of eliciting indifference. Hence, the observed inconsistencies, encapsulated in the matching procedure, have direct implications for the construction of indifference curves (equal-utility contours) that are examined in the final section.

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

[2]  G. Peeters,et al.  Positive-Negative Asymmetry in Evaluations: The Distinction Between Affective and Informational Negativity Effects , 1990 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[4]  M. Zeelenberg.  Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision-making , 1999 .

[5]  J. Payne,et al.  Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[6]  Martijn C. Willemsen,et al.  Negative-based prominence: the role of negative features in matching and choice , 2002 .

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

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

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[10]  H. J. Einhorn,et al.  Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior , 1979 .

[11]  Roland Michelitsch,et al.  Experimental tests of the endowment effect , 1996 .

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

[13]  W. Edwards.  The theory of decision making. , 1954, Psychological bulletin.

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

[15]  J. Elster.  Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality , 1989 .

[16]  Ma Conway,et al.  Handbook of perception and cognition , 1996 .

[17]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

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

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

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

[21]  D. Massaro.  Experimental psychology and information processing , 1975 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[24]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT: MEASURING LABILE VALUES , 1988 .

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

[26]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations , 1989 .