David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Thinking and Reasoning 5 (2):175 – 188 (1999)
Research on preference reversals has demonstrated a disproportionate influence of outcome probability on choices between monetary gambles. The aim was to investigate the hypothesis that this is a prominence effect originally demonstrated for riskless choice. Another aim was to test the structure compatibility hypothesis as an explanation of the effect. The hypothesis implies that probability should be the prominent attribute when compared with value attributes both in a choice and a preference rating procedure. In Experiment 1, two groups of undergraduates were presented with medical treatments described by two value attributes (effectiveness and pain-relief). All participants performed both a matching task and made preference ratings. In the latter task, outcome probabilities were added to the descriptions of the medical treatments for one of the groups. In line with the hypothesis, this reduced the prominence effect on the preference ratings observed for effectiveness. In Experiment 2, a matching task was used to demonstrate that probability was considered more important by a group of participating undergraduates than the value attributes. Furthermore, in both choices and preference ratings the expected prominence effect was found for probability.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Erik Angner (2002). Levi's Account of Preference Reversals. Economics and Philosophy 18 (2):287-302.
Johan E. Gustafsson (2011). An Extended Framework for Preference Relations. Economics and Philosophy 27 (3):360–367.
Sven Ove Hansson (2009). Preference-Based Choice Functions: A Generalized Approach. Synthese 171 (2):257 - 269.
Daniel M. Hausman (2005). Sympathy, Commitment, and Preference. Economics and Philosophy 21 (1):33-50.
Hector Geffner (1992). High-Probabilities, Model-Preference and Default Arguments. Minds and Machines 2 (1):51-70.
K. Hutchison (1999). What Are Conditional Probabilities Conditional Upon? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (4):665-695.
Aidan Feeney, Jonathan Evans & Simon Venn (2008). Rarity, Pseudodiagnosticity and Bayesian Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (3):209 – 230.
Simon Venn, Jonathan Evans & Aidan Feeney (2008). Rarity, Pseudodiagnosticity and Bayesian Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (3):209-230.
Horacio Arló-Costa (2005). Models of Preference Reversals and Personal Rules: Do They Require Maximizing a Utility Function with a Specific Structure? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (5):650-651.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #307,951 of 1,101,859 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,556 of 1,101,859 )
How can I increase my downloads?