Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Theory and Decision
Erschienen in: Theory and Decision 2/2016

29.05.2015

Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice

verfasst von: Georgios Gerasimou

Erschienen in: Theory and Decision | Ausgabe 2/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper proposes and axiomatically characterizes a model of choice that builds on the criterion of partial dominance and allows for two types of avoidant behavior: choice deferral and status quo bias. These phenomena are explained in a unified way that allows for a clear theoretical distinction between them to be made. The model also explains the strengthening of the attraction effect that has been observed when deferral is permissible. Unlike other models of status quo biased behavior, the one analyzed in this paper builds on a unique, reference-independent preference relation that is acyclic and generally incomplete. When this relation is complete, the model reduces to rational choice.
Vorheriger Artikel A strategic approach for the discounted Shapley values
Nächster Artikel Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
The object \(\diamond \) is defined as something not belonging to X in Masatlioglu and Ok (2005). This minor difference in the two definitions is unimportant mathematically.
 
2
Other interpretations have been adopted in the literature. For instance, Masatlioglu and Ok (2015) call \((A,\diamond )\) a problem without a status quo and (A, s) a problem with a status quo.
 
3
This is so because the relation \(\succ \) is acyclic. Thus, if (1a) is not satisfied in \((A,\diamond )\), it must be because \(x\nsucc y\) for all \(x,y\in A\).
 
4
Property \(\gamma \) is also commonly referred to as “Expansion” in the literature.
 
5
Evidence for this effect was first reported in Iyengar and Lepper (2000).
 
6
However, Ok et al. (2015) do analyze a model of choice in which certain feasible alternatives act as endogenous reference points that influence behavior by restricting the set of options over which the agent is maximizing his utility function.
 
Literatur
Anderson, C. J. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.CrossRef
Apesteguia, J., & Ballester, M. (2009). A theory of reference-dependent behavior. Economic Theory, 40, 427–455.CrossRef
Bewley, T. F. (2002). Knightian decision theory. Part I. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 25, 79–110.CrossRef
Bleichrodt, H. (2007). Reference-dependent utility with shifting reference points and incomplete preferences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51, 266–276.CrossRef
Bordallo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2013). Salience and consumer choice. Journal of Political Economy, 121, 803–843.CrossRef
Buturak, G., & Evren, O. (2014). A theory of choice when “No Choice” is an option. Mimeo.
Clark, S. A. (1995). Indecisive choice theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 30, 155–170.CrossRef
Costa-Gomes, M., Cueva, C., & Gerasimou, G. (2014). Choice, deferral and consistency. School of Economics & Finance Discussion Paper 1416, University of St Andrews.
de Clippel, G., & Eliaz, K. (2012). Reason-based choice: A bargaining rationale for the attraction and compromise effects. Theoretical Economics, 7, 125–162.CrossRef
Dean, M. (2008). Status quo bias in large and small choice sets. Mimeo.
Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for a no-choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 215–231.CrossRef
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146–160.CrossRef
Echenique, F., Saito, K., & Tserenjigmid, G. (2014). The perception-adjusted Luce model. Mimeo.
Gerasimou, G. (2015). Partially dominant choice. Economic Theory, forthcoming.
Greenleaf, E. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (1995). Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 186–199.CrossRef
Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.CrossRef
Hurwicz, L. (1986). On the implementation of social choice rules in irrational societies. In W. P. Heller, R. M. Starr, & D. A. Starett (Eds.), Essays in Honor of Kenneth J. Arrow (Vol. I, chap. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.CrossRef
Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79, 1277–1284.
Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A. (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 507–521.CrossRef
Kreps, D. M. (2012). Microeconomic foundations I: Choice and competitive markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kriesler, K., & Nitzan, S. (2008). Is context-based choice due to context-dependent preferences. Theory and Decision, 64, 65–80.CrossRef
Lombardi, M. (2009). Reason-based choice correspondences. Mathematical Social Sciences, 57, 58–66.CrossRef
Luce, M. F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion-laden consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 409–433.CrossRef
Mandler, M. (2004). Status quo maintenance reconsidered: Changing or incomplete preferences? Economic Journal, 114, F518–F535.CrossRef
Masatlioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A. (2005). Rational choice with status quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory, 121, 1–29.CrossRef
Masatlioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A. (2015). A canonical model of choice with initial endowments. Review of Economic Studies, 81, 851–883.CrossRef
Ok, E. A., Ortoleva, P., & Riella, G. (2015). Revealed (p)reference theory. American Economic Review, 105, 299–321.CrossRef
Reb, J. (2008). Regret aversion and decision process quality: Effects of regret salience on decision process carefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 169–182.CrossRef
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRef
Scheibenhenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 409–425.CrossRef
Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition, 11, 11–36.CrossRef
Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158–174.CrossRef
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.CrossRef
Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Science, 3, 358–361.CrossRef
Zakay, D. (1984). “To Choose or not to Choose”: On choice strategy in face of a single alternative. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 373–389.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice
verfasst von
Georgios Gerasimou
Publikationsdatum
29.05.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Theory and Decision / Ausgabe 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0040-5833
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7187
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-015-9499-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2016

Theory and Decision 2/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Solution concepts for games with ambiguous payoffs

OriginalPaper

Risk aversion, prudence, and asset allocation: a review and some new developments

OriginalPaper

The value of information and the value of awareness

OriginalPaper

A strategic approach for the discounted Shapley values

OriginalPaper

Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences

OriginalPaper

Choice under aggregate uncertainty

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise