Intrinsic Variability in Group and Individual Decision Making

References

• Ahn DS, Sarver T (2013) Preference for flexibility and random choice. Econometrica 81(1):341–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker G, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1963) Probabilities of choices among very similar objects: An experiment to decide between two models. Behav. Sci. 8(4):306–311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blavatskyy PR (2011) A model of probabilistic choice satisfying first-order stochastic dominance. Management Sci. 57(3):542–548.Link, Google Scholar
• Brandstätter E, Gigerenzer G, Hertwig R (2006) The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psych. Rev. 113(2):409–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavagnaro DR, Davis-Stober CP (2014) Transitive in our preferences, but transitive in different ways: An analysis of choice variability. Decision 1(2):102–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH (1989) Axiomatic utility theories with the betweenness property. Ann. Oper. Res. 19(1):273–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Karni E, Safra Z (1987) Risk aversion in the theory of expected utility with rank dependent probabilities. J. Econom. Theory 42(2):370–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Jaffray J-Y, Said T (1987) Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 39(1):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Condorcet M (1785) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix (Essay on the Application of the Probabilistic Analysis of Majority Vote Decisions) (Imprimerie Royale, Paris).Google Scholar
• Csaszar FA, Eggers JP (2013) Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view. Management Sci. 59(10):2257–2277.Link, Google Scholar
• Danan E (2010) Randomization vs. selection: How to choose in the absence of preference? Management Sci. 56(3):503–518.Link, Google Scholar
• Davidson D, Marschak J (1959) Experimental tests of a stochastic decision theory. Churchman CW, Ratoosh P, eds. Measurement: Definitions and Theories (John Wiley & Sons, New York),233–269.Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP (2009) Analysis of multinomial models under inequality constraints: Applications to measurement theory. J. Math. Psych. 53(1):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dekel E (1986) An axiomatic characterization of preferences under uncertainty. J. Econom. Theory 40(2):304–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dekel E, Lipman BD, Rustichini A (2001) Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space. Econometrica 69(4):891–934.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dekel E, Lipman BD, Rustichini A, Sarver T (2007) Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space: A corrigendum. Econometrica 75(2):591–600.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dubra J, Maccheroni F, Ok EA (2004) Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom. J. Econom. Theory 115(1):118–133.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fechner GT (1948) Elements of psychophysics, 1860. Wayne D, ed. Readings in the History of Psychology, Century Psychology Series (Appleton-Century-Crofts, East Norwalk, CT), 206–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felsenthal DS, Maoz Z, Rapoport A (1990) The Condorcet-efficiency of sophisticated voting under the plurality and approval procedures. Behav. Sci. 35(1):24–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felsenthal DS, Maoz Z, Rapoport A (1993) An empirical evaluation of six voting procedures—Do they really make any difference? British J. Political Sci. 23(1):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn P (1999) Stochastic utility. Barbara S, Hammond P, Seidl C, eds. Handbook of Utility Theory (Springer, Berlin), 273–320.Google Scholar
• Galaabaatar T, Karni E (2013) Subjective expected utility with incomplete preferences. Econometrica 81(1):255–284.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gehrlein WV (1981) Expected probability of Condorcet’s paradox. Econom. Lett. 7(1):33–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gehrlein WV (1997) Condorcet’s paradox and the Condorcet efficiency of voting rules. Math. Japon. 45(1):173–199.Google Scholar
• Gehrlein WV (2002) Condorcet’s paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: Different perspectives on balanced preferences. Theory Decision 52(2):171–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gehrlein WV, Fishburn PC (1980) Social homogeneity and Condorcet’s paradox. Public Choice 35(4):403–419.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gehrlein WV, Lepelley D (1997) Condorcet’s paradox under the maximal culture condition. Econom. Lett. 55(1):85–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grether DM, Plott C (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 69(4):623–638.Google Scholar
• Gul F, Pesendorfer W (2006) Random expected utility. Econometrica 74(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harless D, Camerer CF (1994) The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6):1251–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heller Y (2012) Justifiable choice. Games Econom. Behav. 76(2):375–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey J (1995) Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3/4):633–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6):1291–1326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iverson GJ, Falmagne J-C (1985) Statistical issues in measurement. Math. Soc. Sci. 10(2):131–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karni E, Safra Z (2014) A theory of stochastic choice under uncertainty. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
• Kreps DM (1979) A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility.” Econometrica 47(3):565–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lehrer E, Teper R (2011) Justifiable preferences. J. Econom. Theory 146(2):762–774.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P (1971) Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(1):46–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lindman HR (1971) Inconsistent preferences among gambles. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(2):390–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1995) Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3/4):641–648.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Starmer C, Sugden R (1991) Observing violations of transitivity by experimental methods. Econometrica 59(2):425–439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Rodríguez-Puerta I, Pinto-Prades J-L (2014) Comment on “A model of probabilistic choice satisfying first-order stochastic dominance” by Pavlo Blavatskyy. Management Sci. 60(5):1346–1350.Link, Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility, and subjective probability. Luce RD, Bush RB, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 3 (John Wiley & Sons, New York),249–410.Google Scholar
• Maccheroni F (2004) Yaari’s dual theory without the completeness axiom. Econom. Theory 23(3):701–714.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machina MJ (1982) “Expected utility” analysis without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50(2):277–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller DC (2003) Public Choice III (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myung J, Karabatsos G, Iverson G (2005) A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. J. Math. Psych. 49(3):205–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ok EA, Ortoleva P, Riella G (2012) Incomplete preferences under uncertainty: Indecisiveness in beliefs versus tastes. Econometrica 80(4):1791–1808.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Otter T, Johnson J, Rieskamp J, Allenby GM, Brazell JD, Diedrich A, Hutchinson JW, MacEachern S, Ruan S, Townsend J (2008) Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances. Marketing Lett. 19(3/4):255–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M (2009) Perspectives on preference aggregation. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 4(4):403–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Grofman B (1998) Approval voting, Borda winners and Condorcet winners: Evidence from seven elections. Management Sci. 44(4):520–533.Link, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2010) Testing transitivity of preferences on two-alternative forced choice data. Frontiers Psych. 1:Article 148.Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Dana J, Davis-Stober CP (2011) Transitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 118(1):42–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Grofman B, Marley A, Tsetlin I (2006) Behavioral Social Choice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Grofman B, Popova A, Messner W, Davis-Stober CP, Cavagnaro DR (2009) Behavioural social choice: A status report. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B: Biol. Sci. 364(1518):833–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rieskamp J, Busemeyer JR, Mellers BA (2006) Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. J. Econom. Literature 44(3):631–661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riker W (1982) Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Rockafellar RT (1970) Convex Analysis (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Safra Z (2014) On betweenness, completeness and transitivity. Working paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
• Sen AK (1969) Quasi-transitivity, rational choice and collective decisions. Rev. Econom. Stud. 36(3):381–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen AK (1970) Collective Choice and Social Welfare (Holden-Day, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Sen AK (1999) The possibility of social choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(3):349–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tangian A (2000) Unlikelihood of Condorcet’s paradox in a large society. Soc. Choice Welfare 17(2):337–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 76(1):31–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vail S (1953) A stochastic model for utilities. Seminar on the application of mathematics to the social sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
• Yaari ME (1987) The dual theory of choice under risk. Econometrica 55(1):95–115.Crossref, Google Scholar