Sequential Observation and Selection with Rank-Dependent Payoffs: An Experimental Study

References

• Bartoszynski R., Govindarajulu Z. The secretary problem with interview cost. Sankhyà: Indian J. Statist. (1978) 40:11–28Google Scholar
• Choe K. I., Bai D. S. A secretary problem with backward solicitation and uncertain employment. J. Appl. Probab. (1983) 20:891–896Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chow Y. S., Moriguti S., Robbins H., Samuels S. M. Optimal selection based on relative rank (the “secretary problem”). Israel J. Math. (1964) 2:81–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• Corbin R. M., Olson C. R., Abbondanza M. Context effects in optimal stopping rules. Organ. Behavior Human Performance (1975) 14:207–216Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferguson T. S. Who solved the secretary problem? Statist. Sci. (1989) 4:282–296Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freeman P. R. The secretary problem and its extensions: A review. Internat. Statist. Rev. (1983) 51:189–206Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gardner M. Mathematical games. Scientific American (1960) 202:150–153Google Scholar
• Gilbert J., Mosteller F. Recognizing the maximum of a sequence. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1966) 61:35–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut C. A. Consumer search behavior and sunk costs. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1990) 14:381–392Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moriguti S. Basic theory of selection by relative rank with cost. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Japan (1993) 36:46–61Google Scholar
• Mucci A. G. Differential equations and optimal choice problems. Ann. Statist (1973) 1:104–113Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pressman E. L., Sonin I. M. The best choice problem for a random number of objects. Theory Probab. Its Appl. (1972) 17:657–668Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A., Tversky A. Choice behavior in an optional stopping task. Organ. Behav. Human Performance (1970) 5:105–120Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rottenstreich Y., Tversky A. Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory. Psych. Rev. (1997) 104:406–415Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuels S. M., Gosh B. K., Sen P. K. Secretary problems. Handbook of Sequential Analysis (1991) (Marcel Dekker, New York) 381–405Google Scholar
• Sardelis D. A., Valahas T. M. Decision making: A golden rule. Math. Monthly (1999) 106:215–226Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seale D. A. Sequential observation and selection with relative ranks: An empirical investigation of the secretary problem. (1996) . Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZGoogle Scholar
• Seale D. A., Rapoport A. Sequential decision making with relative ranks: An experimental investigation of the secretary problem. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1997) 69:221–236Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seale D. A., Rapoport A. Optimal stopping behavior with relative ranks: The secretary problem with unknown population size. J. Behav. Decision Making (2000) 13:391–411Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith M. H. A secretary problem with uncertain employment. J. Appl. Probab. (1975) 12:620–624Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stein W. E., Seale D. A., Rapoport A. Analysis of heuristic solutions to the best choice problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2003) 51:140–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Koehler D. Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psych. Rev. (1994) 101:547–567Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winkler R. L. Scoring rules and the evaluation of probability assessors. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1969) 64:1073–1078Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang M. C. K. Recognizing the maximum of a random sequence based on relative rank with backward solicitation. J. Appl. Probab. (1974) 11:504–512Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yeo A. J., Yeo G. F. Selecting satisfactory secretaries. Australian J. Statist. (1994) 36:185–198Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zwick R., Murphy R., Rapoport A. Sequential search with recall and cost: An experimental study. . Working paper, Department of Marketing, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
• Zwick R., Rapoport A., Lo A. K. C., Muthukrishnan A. V. Consumer sequential search: Not enough or too much? Marketing Sci. (2003) 22:503–519Link, Google Scholar