A model of choice from lists

The standard economic choice model assumes that the decision maker chooses from sets of alternatives. In contrast, we analyze a choice model in which the decision maker encounters the alternatives in the form of a list . We present two axioms similar in nature to the classical axioms of choice from sets. We show that they characterize all the choice functions from lists that involve the choice of either the first or the last optimal alternative in the list according to some preference relation. We then relate choice functions from lists to the classical notions of choice correspondences and random choice functions.Choice from lists, rational choice, partition independence, weak axiom of revealed preference, satisficing

Optimal and Nonoptimal Satisficing I: A Model of 'Satisfactory' Choice

In this paper the authors report the results of a series of individual choice experiments designed to test the usefulness of a particular theory of satisficing and of conjunctive choice models. Several authors have argued that modeling complicated choice problems by using a conjunctive approach can provide useful simplifications. In fact optimal behavior with these models can involve implementation of extremely complicated strategies. The experiments reported deal with multidimensional search problems structured so that the conjunctive model is appropriate. Four groups of subjects performed the same tasks with similar results. In general, subjects' behavior conforms well to predictions based on optimization and where there is systematic deviation they are consistent with a specific theory of satisficing

Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments

Accumulating evidence suggests that respondents in stated choice experiments use simplifying strategies. Such behavior is a deviation from random utility theory and can lead to wrong inferences regarding preferences. This is a first attempt to systematically explore satisficing in stated choice experiments. We consider 944 satisficing rules and allow respondents to revise the rules adopted throughout the choice sequence. Only a minority of respondents used the same satisficing rule across the entire sequence. Allowing for updating reveals that the use of the heuristic changes over the choice sequence. Considering satisficing behavior leads to improved model fits and different marginal willingness-to-pay estimates

A Satisficing Alternative to Prospect Theory

In this paper, we axiomatize a target-based model of choice that allows decision makers to be both risk averse and risk seeking, depending on the payoff's position relative to a prespecified target. The approach can be viewed as a hybrid model, capturing in spirit two celebrated ideas: first, the satisficing concept of Simon (1955); second, the switch between risk aversion and risk seeking popularized by the prospect theory of Kahneman and Tversky (1979). Our axioms are simple and intuitive; in order to be implemented in practice, our approach requires only the specification of an aspiration level. We show that this approach is dual to a known approach using risk measures, thereby allowing us to connect to existing theory. Though our approach is intended to be normative, we also show that it resolves the classical examples of Allais (1953) and Ellsberg (1961).satisficing; aspiration levels; targets; prospect theory; reflection effect; risk measures; coherent risk measures; convex risk measures; portfolio optimization

Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments

Accumulating evidence suggests that respondents in stated choice experiments use simplifying strategies. Such behavior is a deviation from random utility theory and can lead to wrong inferences regarding preferences. This is a first attempt to systematically explore satisficing in stated choice experiments. We consider 944 satisficing rules and allow respondents to revise the rules adopted throughout the choice sequence. Only a minority of respondents used the same satisficing rule across the entire sequence. Allowing for updating reveals that the use of the heuristic changes over the choice sequence. Considering satisficing behavior leads to improved model fits and different marginal willingness-to-pay estimates

Uncovering the computational mechanisms underlying many-alternative choice

How do we choose when confronted with many alternatives? There is surprisingly little decision modelling work with large choice sets, despite their prevalence in everyday life. Even further, there is an apparent disconnect between research in small choice sets, supporting a process of gaze-driven evidence accumulation, and research in larger choice sets, arguing for models of optimal choice, satisficing, and hybrids of the two. Here, we bridge this divide by developing and comparing different versions of these models in a many-alternative value-based choice experiment with 9, 16, 25, or 36 alternatives. We find that human choices are best explained by models incorporating an active effect of gaze on subjective value. A gaze-driven, probabilistic version of satisficing generally provides slightly better fits to choices and response times, while the gaze-driven evidence accumulation and comparison model provides the best overall account of the data when also considering the empirical relation between gaze allocation and choice

Choice Overload, Satisficing Behavior, and Price Distribution in a Time Allocation Model

Recent psychological research indicates that consumers that search exhaustively for the best option of a market product—known as maximizers—eventually feel worse than consumers who just look for something good enough—called satisficers. We formulate a time allocation model to explore the relationship between different distributions of prices of the product and the satisficing behavior and the related welfare of the consumer. We show numerically that, as the number of options becomes large, the maximizing behavior produces less and less welfare and eventually leads to choice paralysis—these are effects of choice overload—whereas satisficing conducts entail higher levels of satisfaction and do not end up in paralysis. For different price distributions, we provide consistent evidence that maximizers are better off for a low number of options, whereas satisficers are better off for a sufficiently large number of options. We also show how the optimal satisficing behavior is affected when the underlying price distribution varies. We provide evidence that the mean and the dispersion of a symmetric distribution of prices—but not the shape of the distribution—condition the satisficing behavior of consumers. We also show that this need not be the case for asymmetric distributions

Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences

We consider choice over a set of monetary acts (random variables) and study a general class of preferences. These preferences favor diversification, except perhaps on a subset of sufficiently disliked acts, over which concentration is instead preferred. This structure encompasses a number of known models in this setting. We show that such preferences can be expressed in dual form in terms of a family of measures of risk and a target function. Specifically, the choice function is equivalent to selection of a maximum index level such that the risk of beating the target function at that level is acceptable. This dual representation may help to uncover new models of choice. One that we explore in detail is the special case of a bounded target function. This case corresponds to a type of satisficing and has descriptive relevance. Moreover, the model results in optimization problems that may be efficiently solved in large-scale.