IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v46y2000i1p88-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory W. Fischer

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Mary Frances Luce

    (The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104)

  • Jianmin Jia

    (Faculty of Business Administration, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong)

Abstract

This research investigates preference uncertainty generated as a function of specific alternative characteristics during multiattribute evaluative judgments. We propose that preference uncertainty has at least two behavioral manifestations: longer judgment times and greater response error in expressed preferences. We investigate two hypotheses regarding stimulus-based causes of preference uncertainty. As predicted by our attribute conflict hypothesis, greater within-alternative conflict (discrepancy among the attributes of an evaluative alternative) led to longer judgment times and greater response error. As predicted by our attribute extremity hypothesis, greater attribute extremity (very high or low attribute values) resulted in shorter judgment times and less response error. We also found that judgment times and response errors were strongly positively correlated at the item level, consistent with our assumption that preference uncertainty generated by stimulus characteristics is manifested in judgment time and error. Finally, we found that the item-level preference uncertainty effects proposed here operate in parallel with strategy-level, effort-accuracy tradeoffs observable across participants. These findings are consistent with the RandMAU random multiattribute utility model developed in a companion article by Fischer et al. (2000).

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory W. Fischer & Mary Frances Luce & Jianmin Jia, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: Effects on Judgment Time and Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(1), pages 88-103, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:46:y:2000:i:1:p:88-103
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.46.1.88.15131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.1.88.15131
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.46.1.88.15131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    2. Gregory W. Fischer & Ziv Carmon & Dan Ariely & Gal Zauberman, 1999. "Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(8), pages 1057-1075, August.
    3. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    4. Gregory W. Fischer & Jianmin Jia & Mary Frances Luce, 2000. "Attribute Conflict and Preference Uncertainty: The RandMAU Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(5), pages 669-684, May.
    5. Kathryn Blackmond Laskey & Gregory W. Fischer, 1987. "Estimating Utility Functions in the Presence of Response Error," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(8), pages 965-980, August.
    6. Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 1988. "Information displays and preference reversals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, August.
    7. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    8. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Not Just Another Paper Showing Violations of the Expected Utility Model: The Effects of Alternative Similarity on Risky Choice," CUDARE Working Papers 198603, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Buschena, David E. & Zilberman, David, 1992. "Similarity of Choices and the Performance of the Expected Utility Approach: Empirical Results," 1992 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, March 22-25, 1992, Orlando, Florida 307868, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    3. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    4. Koehler, Jonathan J. & Gershoff, Andrew D., 2003. "Betrayal aversion: When agents of protection become agents of harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 244-261, March.
    5. Raúl López-Pérez & Eli Spiegelman, 2020. "Using Eye-Tracking Techniques To Understand The Role Of Attention On Choice And Reversals," Working Papers 2001, Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP), CSIC.
    6. Mehmet Burak Kahyaoglu & Ozgur Ican, 2017. "Risk Aversion and Emotions in DoND," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(1), pages 32-46, January.
    7. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1998. ""Wow, I could've had a V8!" : The role of regret in consumer choice," Other publications TiSEM 65a1916f-f531-420e-a78c-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. Inman, J.J. & Zeelenberg, M., 1998. ""Wow, I could've had a V8!" : The role of regret in consumer choice," Discussion Paper 1998-79, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    9. Yan Li & Neal Ashkanasy & David Ahlstrom, 2014. "The rationality of emotions: A hybrid process model of decision-making under uncertainty," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 293-308, March.
    10. Steven Humphrey, 1999. "Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-78, February.
    11. Philippe Delquié, 2003. "Optimal Conflict in Preference Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(1), pages 102-115, January.
    12. Georgia Perakis & Guillaume Roels, 2008. "Regret in the Newsvendor Model with Partial Information," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 188-203, February.
    13. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    14. Jinyi Hu, 2023. "Linguistic Multiple-Attribute Decision Making Based on Regret Theory and Minimax-DEA," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    16. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    17. van Dijk, Wilco W. & van der Pligt, Joop, 1997. "The Impact of Probability and Magnitude of Outcome on Disappointment and Elation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 277-284, March.
    18. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Thierry Post, 2011. "Loss Aversion with a State-Dependent Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(6), pages 1094-1110, June.
    19. van Dijk, W.W. & Zeelenberg, M. & van der Pligt, J., 1999. "Not having what you want versus having what you don't want : The impact of the type of negative outcome on the experience of disappointment and related emotions," Other publications TiSEM 5d1661b1-db82-4773-8ac4-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:46:y:2000:i:1:p:88-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.