Why Is Choice Stochastic? Deliberate Randomization vs. Strength of Preference

References

• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2017) Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. J. Political Econom. 125(1):40–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2022) Revealed preferences for randomization: An overview. AEA Papers Proc. 112:426–430.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2023) Ranges of randomization. Rev. Econom. Statist. 107(6):1702–1713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agranov M, Healy PJ, Nielsen K (2022) Stable randomization. Econom. J. 133(655):2553–2579.Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Garagnani M (2021) Choice consistency and strength of preference. Econom. Lett. 198:109672.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Garagnani M (2022a) The gradual nature of economic errors. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 200:55–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Garagnani M (2022b) Strength of preference and decisions under risk. J. Risk Uncertainty 64(3):309–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Garagnani M (2024) Improving risky-choice predictions using response times. J. Political Econom. Microeconomics 2(2):335–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Fehr E, Netzer N (2021) Time will tell: Recovering preferences when choices are noisy. J. Political Econom. 129(6):1828–1877.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alós-Ferrer C, Granić DG, Kern J, Wagner AK (2016) Preference reversals: Time and again. J. Risk Uncertainty 52(1):65–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson SP, Thisse JF, De Palma A (1992) Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Apesteguía J, Ballester MA (2018) Monotone stochastic choice models: The case of risk and time preferences. J. Political Econom. 126(1):74–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldassi C, Cerreia-Vioglio S, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M (2020) A behavioral characterization of the drift diffusion model and its multi-alternative extension to choice under time pressure. Management Sci. 66(11):5075–5093.Link, Google Scholar
• Ballinger TP, Wilcox NT (1997) Decisions, error and heterogeneity. Econom. J. 107(443):1090–1105.Google Scholar
• Baltas G, Doyle P (2001) Random utility models in marketing research: A survey. J. Bus. Res. 51(2):115–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler DJ, Loomes G (2007) Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(1):277–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler DJ, Loomes G (2011) Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 80(3):511–522.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF (1989) Does the basketball market believe in the “hot hand”? Amer. Econom. Rev. 79(5):1257–1261.Google Scholar
• Cappellari L, Jenkins SP (2003) Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. Stata J. 3(3):278–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattell JM (1902) The time of perception as a measure of differences in intensity. Philosophische Studien. 19:63–68.Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Dillenberger D, Ortoleva P (2015) Cautious expected utility and the certainty effect. Econometrica 83(2):693–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Dillenberger D, Ortoleva P, Riella G (2019) Deliberately stochastic. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(7):2425–2445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cettolin E, Riedl A (2019) Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization. J. Econom. Theory 181:547–585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chabris CF, Morris CL, Taubinsky D, Laibson D, Schuldt JP (2009) The allocation of time in decision-making. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 7(2–3):628–637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chew SH, Miao B, Shen Q, Zhong S (2022) Multiple-switching behavior in choice-list elicitation of risk preference. J. Econom. Theory 204:105510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiong KX, Shum M, Webb R, Chen R (2024) Combining choice and response time data: A drift-diffusion model of mobile advertisements. Management Sci. 70(2):1238–1257.Link, Google Scholar
• Clithero JA (2018) Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models. J. Econom. Psych. 69:61–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Jaffray JY, 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
• Cubitt RP, Navarro-Martinez D, Starmer C (2015) On preference imprecision. J. Risk Uncertainty 50(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dashiell JF (1937) Affective value-distances as a determinant of aesthetic judgment-times. Amer. J. Psych. 50(1/4):57–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davidson D, Marschak J (1959) Experimental tests of a stochastic decision theory. Churchman W, Ratoosh P, eds. Measurement: Definitions and Theories, vol. I, part I (Wiley, New York), 233–269.Google Scholar
• Debreu G (1958) Stochastic choice and cardinal utility. Econometrica 26(3):440–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dehaene S (1992) Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition 44(1–2):1–42.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dehaene S, Dupoux E, Mehler J (1990) Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. J. Experiment. Psych. Human Perception Performance 16(3):626–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duffy S, Smith J (2025) Stochastic choice and imperfect judgments of line lengths: What is hiding in the noise? J. Econom. Psych. 106:102787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dwenger N, Kübler D, Weizsäcker G (2018) Flipping a coin: Evidence from university applications. J. Public Econom. 167:240–250.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Enke B, Graeber T (2023) Cognitive uncertainty. Quart. J. Econom. 138(4):2021–2067.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feldman P, Rehbeck J (2022) Revealing a preference for mixtures: An experimental study of risk. Quant. Econom. 13(2):761–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Caldentey R, Ryan CT (2022) Robust learning of consumer preferences. Oper. Res. 70(2):918–962.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1988) Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).Google Scholar
• Frydman C, Jin LJ (2022) Efficient coding and risky choice. Quart. J. Econom. 137(1):161–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Strack P, Strzalecki T (2018) Speed, accuracy, and the optimal timing of choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(12):3651–3684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garagnani M (2023) The predictive power of risk elicitation tasks. J. Risk Uncertainty 67(2):165–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garagnani M, Vieider FM (2025) Economic consequences of numerical adaptation. Psych. Sci. 36(6):407–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glimcher PW, Dorris MC, Bayer HM (2005) Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games Econom. Behav. 52(2):213–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Potters J (1997) An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods. Quart. J. Econom. 112(2):631–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenwald AG, Banaji MR (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psych. Rev. 102(1):4–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grether DM, Plott CR (1979) Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. Amer. Econom. Rev. 69(4):623–638.Google Scholar
• Halevy Y, Walker-Jones D, Zrill L (2023) Difficult decision. Working paper, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
• Halton JH (1960) On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numer. Math. 2(1):84–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harless DW, Camerer CF (1994) The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6):1251–1289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hey JD (2001) Does repetition improve consistency? Experiment. Econom. 4(1):5–54.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
• Hicks JR, Allen RG (1934) A reconsideration of the theory of value. Part I. Economica 1(1):52–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karp JA (2009) Candidate effects and spill-over in mixed systems: Evidence from New Zealand. Electoral Stud. 28(1):41–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khaw MW, Li Z, Woodford M (2021) Cognitive imprecision and small-stakes risk aversion. Rev. Econom. Stud. 88(4):1979–2013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Oud B, Fehr E (2014) Benefits of neuroeconomic modeling: New policy interventions and predictors of preference. Amer. Econom. Rev. Papers Proc. 104(5):501–506.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laming D (1985) Some principles of sensory analysis. Psych. Rev. 92(4):462–485.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
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1998) Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica 65(260):581–598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Moffatt PG, Sugden R (2002) A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 24(2):103–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Machina MJ (1985) Stochastic choice functions generated from deterministic preferences over lotteries. Econom. J. 95(379):575–594.Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• McFadden DL (2001) Economic choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 91(3):351–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR (1995) Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games Econom. Behav. 10(1):6–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKelvey RD, Palfrey TR (1998) Quantal response equilibria for extensive form games. Experiment. Econom. 1(1):9–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miao B, Zhong S (2018) Probabilistic social preferences: How Machina’s mom randomizes her choice. Econom. Theory 65(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moffatt PG (2005) Stochastic choice and the allocation of cognitive effort. Experiment. Econom. 8(4):369–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moffatt PG (2015) Experimetrics: Econometrics for Experimental Economics (Palgrave Macmillan, London).Google Scholar
• Mosteller F, Nogee P (1951) An experimental measurement of utility. J. Political Econom. 59(5):371–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moyer RS, Landauer TK (1967) Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature 215(5109):1519–1520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nielsen K, Rigotti L (2022) Revealed incomplete preferences. Preprint, submitted May 17, https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.08584.Google Scholar
• Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psych. Rev. 84(3):231–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nownes AJ (1992) Primaries, general elections, and voter turnout: A multinomial logit model of the decision to vote. Amer. Politics. Res. 20(2):205–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ong Q, Qiu J (2023) Paying for randomization and indecisiveness. J. Risk Uncertainty 67:45–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Padoa-Schioppa C, Assad JA (2006) Neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex encode economic value. Nature 441(7090):223–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica 68(5):1281–1292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psych. Rev. 85(2):59–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Rouder JN (1998) Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psych. Sci. 9(5):347–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Tuerlinckx F (2002) Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 9(3):438–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roitman JD, Shadlen MN (2002) Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neuroscience 22(21):9475–9489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Kiani R (2013) Decision making as a window on cognition. Neuron 80(3):791–806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Shohamy D (2016) Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron 90(5):927–939.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shi L, Qiu J, Li J, Bohn F (2024) Consciously stochastic in preference reversals. J. Risk Uncertainty 68:255–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiliopoulos L, Ortmann A (2018) The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics. Experiment. Econom. 21(2):383–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgement. Psych. Rev. 34(4):273–286.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train KE (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1969) Intransitivity of preferences. Psych. Rev. 76(1):31–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Thaler RH (1990) Anomalies: Preference reversals. J. Econom. Perspect. 4(2):201–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vieider FM (2024) Decisions under uncertainty as Bayesian inference on choice options. Management Sci. 70(12):9014–9030.Link, Google Scholar
• Wald A (1945) Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann. Math. Statist. 16(2):117–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wald A, Wolfowitz J (1945) Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test. Ann. Math. Statist. 19(3):326–339.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webb R (2019) The (neural) dynamics of stochastic choice. Management Sci. 64(1):230–255.Link, Google Scholar
• Wichmann AF, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Attention Perception Psychophysics 63(8):1293–1313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zizzo DJ (2010) Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 13(1):75–98.Crossref, Google Scholar