IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v83y2017i3d10.1007_s11238-017-9601-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiattribute decision time theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nobuo Koida

    (Iwate Prefectural University)

Abstract

In this study, we analyze choice in the presence of some conflict that affects the decision time (response time), a subject that has been documented in the literature. We axiomatize a multiattribute decision time (MDT) representation, which is a dynamic extension of the classic multiattribute expected utility theory that allows potentially incomplete preferences. Under this framework, one alternative is preferred to another in a certain period if and only if the weighted sum of the attribute-dependent expected utility induced by the former alternative is larger than that induced by the latter for all attribute weights in a closed and convex set. MDT uniquely determines the decision time as the earliest period at which the ranking between alternatives becomes decisive. The comparative statics result indicates that the decision time provides useful information to locate indifference curves in a specific setting. MDT also explains various empirical findings in economics and other relevant fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobuo Koida, 2017. "A multiattribute decision time theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 407-430, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:83:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9601-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-017-9601-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-017-9601-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-017-9601-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    2. Xavier Gabaix & David Laibson & Guillermo Moloche & Stephen Weinberg, 2006. "Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1043-1068, September.
    3. Peter C. Fishburn, 1965. "Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(1), pages 28-45, February.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Christopher F. Chabris & David Laibson & Carrie L. Morris & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2009. "The Allocation of Time in Decision-Making," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 628-637, 04-05.
    6. Itzhak Gilboa & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & David Schmeidler, 2010. "Objective and Subjective Rationality in a Multiple Prior Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(2), pages 755-770, March.
    7. Juan Dubra & Fabio Maccheroni & Efe A. Ok, 2004. "Expected Utility Without the Completeness Axiom," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm404, Yale School of Management.
    8. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    9. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    10. Loewenstein, George & O'Donoghue, Ted, 2004. "Animal Spirits: Affective and Deliberative Processes in Economic Behavior," Working Papers 04-14, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    11. Kraus, Alan & Sagi, Jacob S., 2006. "Inter-temporal preference for flexibility and risky choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 698-709, September.
    12. Tyebjee, Tyzoon T, 1979. "Response Time, Conflict, and Involvement in Brand Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 6(3), pages 295-304, December.
    13. Dubra, Juan & Maccheroni, Fabio & Ok, Efe A., 2004. "Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 118-133, March.
    14. ,, 2009. "Choice deferral and ambiguity aversion," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(2), June.
    15. Efe A. Ok, 2007. "Preliminaries of Real Analysis, from Real Analysis with Economic Applications," Introductory Chapters, in: Real Analysis with Economic Applications, Princeton University Press.
    16. , & ,, 2011. "Search, choice, and revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
    17. Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
    19. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aoyama, Tomohito, 2020. "Response time and revealed information structure," Discussion paper series HIAS-E-101, Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University.
    2. D. Pennesi, 2016. "Deciding fast and slow," Working Papers wp1082, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    3. Nobuo Koida, 2021. "Intransitive indifference with direction-dependent sensitivity," KIER Working Papers 1061, Kyoto University, Institute of Economic Research.

    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. Minardi, Stefania & Savochkin, Andrei, 2015. "Preferences with grades of indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 300-331.
    2. Guo, Liang, 2021. "Contextual deliberation and the choice-valuation preference reversal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Arkady Konovalov & Ian Krajbich, 2016. "Revealed Indifference: Using Response Times to Infer Preferences," Working Papers 16-01, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Pejsachowicz, Leonardo & Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 83566, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    6. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Alfio Giarlotta & Salvatore Greco & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Rational preference and rationalizable choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(1), pages 61-105, February.
    7. Hill, Brian, 2016. "Incomplete preferences and confidence," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 83-103.
    8. Faro, José Heleno, 2015. "Variational Bewley preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 699-729.
    9. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2021. "Is response time predictive of choice? An experimental study of threshold strategies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 87-117, March.
    10. McCarthy, David & Mikkola, Kalle, 2018. "Continuity and completeness of strongly independent preorders," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 141-145.
    11. Echenique, Federico & Saito, Kota, 2017. "Response time and utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 49-59.
    12. Elena Cettolin & Arno Riedl, 2015. "Revealed Incomplete Preferences under Uncertainty," CESifo Working Paper Series 5359, CESifo.
    13. Qiyan Ong & Jianying Qiu, 2023. "Paying for randomization and indecisiveness," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 45-72, August.
    14. Evren, Özgür, 2014. "Scalarization methods and expected multi-utility representations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 30-63.
    15. Pejsachowicz, Leonardo & Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Choice deferral, indecisiveness and preference for flexibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 417-425.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:381-394 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Arkady Konovalov & Ian Krajbich, 2019. "Revealed strength of preference: Inference from response times," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 381-394, July.
    18. Koida, Nobuo, 2022. "Indecisiveness, preference for flexibility, and a unique subjective state space," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    19. José Heleno Faro & Ana Santos, 2023. "Updating variational (Bewley) preferences," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 207-228, January.
    20. David McCarthy & Kalle Mikkola & Teruji Thomas, 2019. "Aggregation for potentially infinite populations without continuity or completeness," Papers 1911.00872, arXiv.org.
    21. Stoye, Jörg, 2015. "Choice theory when agents can randomize," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 131-151.

    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:kap:theord:v:83:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9601-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.