Optimal Effort in Consumer Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence for Binary Choice

This paper develops a theoretical model of optimal effort in consumer choice.The model extends previous consumer choice models in that the consumer not only chooses a product, but also decides how much effort to apply to a given choice problem.The model yields a unique optimal level of effort, which depends on the consumer's cost of effort, the expected utility gain of a correct choice, and the complexity of the choice set.We show that the relationship between effort and cost of effort is negative, whereas the relationships between effort and product utility difference and choice task complexity are undetermined.To resolve this theoretical ambiguity and to explore our model empirically, we investigate the relationships between effort and cost of effort, product utility difference and choice task complexity using data from a conjoint choice study of two-alternative consumer restaurant choices.Response time is used as a proxy for effort and consumer involvement measures capture individual differences in (relative) cost of effort and perceived complexity.Effort is explained using the (estimated) utility difference between alternatives, the number of elementary information processes (EIP's) required to solve the choice problem optimally and respondent specific cost of effort and complexity perceptions.The predictions of the theoretical model are supported by our empirical findings.Response time increases with lower cost of effort and greater perceived complexity (i.e. higher involvement).We find that across the range of choice tasks in our survey, effort increases linearly with smaller product utility differences and greater choice task complexity.consumer choice;bounded rationality

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo

The relation between language and theory of mind in development and evolution

Considering the close relation between language and theory of mind in development and their tight connection in social behavior, it is no big leap to claim that the two capacities have been related in evolution as well. But what is the exact relation between them? This paper attempts to clear a path toward an answer. I consider several possible relations between the two faculties, bring conceptual arguments and empirical evidence to bear on them, and end up arguing for a version of co-evolution. To model this co-evolution, we must distinguish between different stages or levels of language and theory of mind, which fueled each other’s evolution in a protracted escalation process