A Characterization of Lexicographic Preferences

References

• Arrow KJ (1951) Social Choice and Individual Values (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Bahrampour M, Byrnes J, Norman R, Scuffham PA, Downes M (2020) Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: A systematic review of methods. Eur. J. Health Econom. 21(7):983–992.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consumer Res. 25(3):187–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Gutierrez RJ (2007) Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 104(1):96–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bossert W, Pattanaik PK, Xu Y (1994) Ranking opportunity sets: An axiomatic approach. J. Econom. Theory 63(2):326–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, Scarpa R (2006) Lexicographic preferences in discrete choice experiments: consequences on individual-specific willingness to pay estimates. Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Paper 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
• Chistyakov V, Chumakova K (2018) Restoring indifference classes via ordinal numbers under the discrete leximin and leximax preference orderings. J. New Econom. Assoc. 39(3):12–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Debreu G (1954) Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function. Thrall R, Coombs C, Davis R eds. Decision Processes (Wiley, New York), 159–165.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1975) Axioms for lexicographic preferences. Rev. Econom. Stud. 42(3):415–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ford JK, Schmitt N, Schechtman SL, Hults BH, Doherty ML (1989) Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organ. Behav. Decision Processes 43(1):75–117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geanakoplos J (2005) Three brief proofs of Arrow’s impossibility theorem. Econom. Theory 26(1):211–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Rev. Psych. 62(1):451–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1999) Betting on one good reason: The take the best heuristic. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group. eds. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford University Press, Cambridge, UK), 75–95.Google Scholar
• Gilbride T, Allenby GM (2004) A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Sci. 23(3):391–406.Link, Google Scholar
• González-Vallejo C (2002) Making trade-offs: A probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. Psych. Rev. 109(1):137–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM, Karelaia N (2006) Regions of rationality: Maps for bounded agents. Decision Anal. 3(3):124–144.Link, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos KV (2011) Psychological heuristics for making inferences: Definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decision Anal. 8(1):10–29.Link, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos KV (2013) Why do simple heuristics perform well in choices with binary attributes? Decision Anal. 10(4):327–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with Multiple Objectives (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kurz-Milcke E, Gigerenzer G (2007) Heuristic decision making. Marketing 3(1):48–56.Google Scholar
• Lancsar E, Louviere J (2006) Deleting “irrational” responses from discrete choice experiments: A case of investigating or imposing preferences? Health Econom. 15(8):797–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leong W, Hensher DA (2012) Embedding multiple heuristics into choice models: An exploratory analysis. J. Choice Model. 5(3):131–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McIntosh E, Ryan M (2002) Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences. J. Econom. Psych. 23(3):367–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meenakshi JV, Banerji A, Manyong V, Tomlins K, Mittal N, Hamukwala P (2012) Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: Willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia. J. Health Econom. 31(1):62–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mendelson B (1990) Introduction to Topology, 3rd ed. (Dover Publications, Mineola, NY).Google Scholar
• Mitra M, Sen D (2014a) An alternative proof of Fishburn’s axiomatization of lexicographic preferences. Econom. Lett. 124(2):168–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitra M, Sen D (2014b) Subsistence, saturation and irrelevance in preferences. MPRA Paper No. 60614. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/60614/.Google Scholar
• Petri H, Voorneveld M (2016) Characterizing lexicographic preferences. J. Math. Econom. 63(C):54–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubinstein A (2012) Lecture Notes in Microeconomic Theory: The Economic Agent, 2nd ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Rudin W (1976) Principles of Mathematical Analysis (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York).Google Scholar
• Sælensminde K (2002) The impact of choice inconsistencies in stated choice studies. Environ. Resource Econom. 23(4):403–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott A (2002) Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: An application in healthcare. J. Econom. Psych. 23(3):383–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 76(1):31–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. 79(4):281–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yee M, Dahan E, Hauser J, Orlin J (2007) Greedoid-based noncompensatory inference. Marketing Sci. 26(4):532–549.Link, Google Scholar