IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v22y2010i2p237-252.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

More freedom of choice but less preference satisfaction in parametric situations

Author

Listed:
  • Hanna van Loo

    (University of Groningen, The Netherlands, hannavanloo@gmail.com)

Abstract

Freedom of choice is often defended with reference to its positive influence on the satisfaction of preferences. The more choice options there are, the greater the level of utility one derives from choosing one of the options. Moreover, it is assumed that the satisfaction of preferences will not decrease if the size of the choice set increases, in particular in parametric situations. This paper opposes this conclusion by showing that choosing option a from a one-element choice set { a } may not be identical with choosing option a from a two-element choice set { a,b }. The character and the consequences of choosing option a may change considerably with the addition of another option b . Therefore, the level of utility derived from option a changes as well, possibly even in a negative way. Hence, an increase in freedom of choice may diminish one’s preference satisfaction, also in parametric situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanna van Loo, 2010. "More freedom of choice but less preference satisfaction in parametric situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(2), pages 237-252, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:22:y:2010:i:2:p:237-252
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463110366228
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463110366228
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463110366228?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. Prasanta K. PATTANAIK & Yongsheng XU, 1990. "On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 1990036, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    2. Sen, Amartya, 1988. "Freedom of choice : Concept and content," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2-3), pages 269-294, March.
    3. Barbara E. Kahn & Mary Frances Luce, 2003. "Understanding High-Stakes Consumer Decisions: Mammography Adherence Following False-Alarm Test Results," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 393-410, April.
    4. Simona Botti & Kristina Orfali & Sheena S. Iyengar, 2009. "Tragic Choices: Autonomy and Emotional Responses to Medical Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 337-352.
    5. Dowding, Keith, 1992. "Choice: Its Increase and its Value," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 301-314, July.
    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. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2001. "Characterizations of Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 423-436, December.
    2. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    3. Ernesto Screpanti, 2006. "Taxation, Social Goods And The Distribution Of Freedom," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Baharad, Eyal & Nitzan, Shmuel, 2003. "Essential alternatives and set-dependent preferences--an axiomatic approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 121-129, April.
    5. Tadenuma, Koichi & Xu, Yongsheng, 2012. "Extensions of the Fundamental Welfare Theorems in a Non-welfaristic Framework," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 53(1), pages 107-120, June.
    6. Serge-Christophe Kolm, 2003. "Macrojustice : distribution, impôts et transferts optimaux," IDEP Working Papers 0305, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France.
    7. repec:hal:journl:dumas-00906152 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Camacho, N.M.A. & de Jong, M.G. & Stremersch, S., 2014. "The Effect of Customer Empowerment on Adherence to Expert Advice," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2014-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    9. Walter Bossert, 1998. "Opportunity Sets and the Measurement of Information," Discussion Papers 98/6, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    10. Barberà, Salvador & Grodal, Birgit, 2011. "Preference for flexibility and the opportunities of choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 272-278.
    11. Arlegi, Ritxar & Bourgeois-Gironde, Sacha & Hualde, Mikel, 2022. "Attitudes toward choice with incomplete preferences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 663-679.
    12. Rommeswinkel, Hendrik, 2011. "Measuring Freedom in Games," MPRA Paper 106426, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 03 Mar 2021.
    13. Ok, Efe A., 1997. "On Opportunity Inequality Measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 300-329, December.
    14. Iwata, Yukinori, 2007. "A variant of non-consequentialism and its characterization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 284-295, May.
    15. Bhattacharya, Aveek, 2020. "When and why might choice in public services have intrinsic (dis)value?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121526, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Sebastian Bervoets, 2007. "Freedom of choice in a social context: comparing game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 295-315, September.
    17. Bervoets, Sebastian & Gravel, Nicolas, 2007. "Appraising diversity with an ordinal notion of similarity: An axiomatic approach," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 259-273, May.
    18. Nicolas Gravel & Benoît Tarroux, 2011. "Freedom-Based Measurement of Living Standard," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 101-102, pages 37-69.
    19. Camacho, Nuno & De Jong, Martijn & Stremersch, Stefan, 2014. "The effect of customer empowerment on adherence to expert advice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 293-308.
    20. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2003. "Consequences, opportunities, and generalized consequentialism and non-consequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 293-304, August.
    21. Ritxar Arlegi & Manuel Besada & Jorge Nieto & Carmen Vázquez, 2000. "Freedom of choice: the leximax criterion in economic environments," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0009, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:22:y:2010:i:2:p:237-252. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.