Commentary—On the Interpretation of Temporal Inflation Parameters in Stochastic Models of Judgment and Choice

References

• Ainslie G., Haslam N., Lowenstein G., Elster J. Hyperbolic discounting. Choice Over Time (1992) (Russell Sage Foundation, New York) 57–92Google Scholar
• Brenner L. A. Should observed overconfidence be dismissed as a statistical artifact? Critique of Erev, Wallsten, and Budescu (1994). Psych. Rev. (2000) 107(4):943–946Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer J. R. Decision making under uncertainty: A comparison of simple scalability, fixed-sample and sequential-sampling models. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learn., Memory, Cognition (1985) 11(3):538–564Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer J. R., Townsend J. T. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitire approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. (1993) 100(3):432–459Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Keane M. P. Decision-making under uncertainty: Capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(1):1–20Link, Google Scholar
• Erdem T., Zhao Y., Valenzuela A. Performance of store brands: A cross-country analysis of consumer store-brand preferences, perceptions, and risk. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(1):86–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erev I., Wallsten T. S., Budescu D. V. Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psych. Rev. (1994) 101(3):519–527Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S., Lowenstein G. F., O'Donoghue T. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J. Econom. Literature (2002) 40(2):351–401Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green D. M., Swets J. A.Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (1966) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Huang Y., Hutchinson J. W. Counting every thought: Implicit measures of cognitive responses to advertising. J. Consumer Res. (2008) 35(1):98–118Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hunter J. E., Schmidt F. L.Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (2004) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hutchinson J. W., Kamakura W. A., Lynch J. G. Unobserved heterogeneity as an alternative explanation for “reversal” effects in behavioral research. J. Consumer Res. (2000) 27(3):324–344Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liberman N., Trope Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1998) 75(1):5–18Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S., Fischhoff B., Phillips L. D., Kahneman D., Slovic P., Tversky A. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 306–334Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J. What if consumer choice experiments impact variances as well as means? Response variability as a behavioral phenomenon. J. Consumer Res. (2001) 28(3):506–511Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J. J., Meyer R. J., Malhotra N. K. Formal choice models of informal choices: What choice modeling research can (and can't) learn from behavioral theory. Review of Marketing Research (2007) 4(M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY) 3–32Google Scholar
• Luce R. D.Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (1959) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Luce R. D. Thorstone's discriminal processes fifty years later. Psychometrika (1977) 42(4):461–489Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynch J. G., Zauberman G. Construing consumer decision making. J. Consumer Psych. (2007) 17(2):107–112Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malkoc S., Zauberman G., Ulu C. Consuming now or later? The interactive effect of timing and attribute alignability. Psych. Sci. (2005) 16(5):411–417Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D. F., Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers of Econometrics (1974) (Academic Press, New York) 104–142Google Scholar
• McFadden D. F. Economic choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2001) 91(3):351–378Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psych. Rev. (1956) 63(March):81–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Otter T., Allenby G. M., van Zandt T. An integrated model of discrete choice and response time. J. Marketing Res. (2008a) 45(5):593–607Crossref, Google Scholar
• Otter T., Johnson J., Rieskamp J., Allenby G. M., Brazell J. D., Diederich A., Hutchinson J. W., MacEachern S., Ruan S., Townsend J. Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances. Marketing Lett. (2008b) 19(3–4):255–267Crossref, Google Scholar
• Read D., Lowenstein G. Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. J. Experiment. Psych.-Appl. (1995) 1(1):34–49Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salisbury L. C., Feinberg F. M. Future preference uncertainty and diversification: The role of temporal stochastic inflation. J. Consumer Res. (2008) 35(2):349–359Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salisbury L. C., Feinberg F. M. Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement, and experimental test. Marketing Sci. (2010) 29(1):1–17Link, Google Scholar
• Samuelson P. A. A note on measurement of utility. Rev. Econom. Stud. (1937) 4(2):155–161Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seetharaman P. B. Modeling multiple sources of state dependence in random utility models: A distributed lag approach. Marketing Sci. (2004) 23(2):263–271Link, Google Scholar
• Slovic P., Lichtenstein S. Preference reversals: A broader perspective. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1983) 73(4):596–605Google Scholar
• Soman D. The illusion of delayed incentives: Evaluating future effort-money transactions. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(4):427–437Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thaler R. Some empirical evidence of dynamic inconsistency. Econom. Lett. (1981) 8(3):201–207Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thurstone L. L. A law of comparative judgments. Psych. Rev. (1927a) 34:273–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thurstone L. L. Psychophysical analysis. Amer. J. Psych. (1927b) 38:368–389Crossref, Google Scholar
• Townsend J. T., Ashby F. G.The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes (1983) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
• Trope Y., Liberman N. Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2000) 79(6):876–889Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trope Y., Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psych. Rev. (2003) 110(3):403–421Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Choice by elimination. J. Math. Psych. (1972a) 9(November):341–367Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. (1972b) 79(4):281–299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psych. Rev. (1988) 95(3):371–384Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wallsten T. S., Erev I., Budescu D. V. The importance of theory: Response to Brenner (2000). Psych. Rev. (2000) 107(4):947–949Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wickens T. D.Elementary Signal Detection Theory (2002) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Wixted J. T. Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psych. Rev. (2007) 114(1):152–176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yonelinas A. P., Parks C. M. Receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) in recognition memory: A review. Psych. Bull. (2007) 133(5):800–832Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zauberman G. The intertemporal dynamics of consumer lock-in. J. Consumer Res. (2003) 30(3):405–419Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zauberman G., Lynch J. G. Resource slack and propensity to discount delayed investments of time versus money. J. Experiment. Psych.: General (2005) 134(1):23–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang S., Markman A. B. Processing product unique features: Alignability and involvement in preference construction. J. Consumer Psych. (2001) 11(1):13–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao M., Hoeffler S., Zauberman G. Mental simulation and preference consistency over time: The role of process- versus outcome-focused thoughts. J. Marketing Res. (2007) 44(3):379–388Crossref, Google Scholar