Learning own preferences through consumption

• Autorzy: Marek Kapera
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This paper provides theoretical foundations for preference discovery theory. We propose to relax the assumption that the consumer has perfect knowledge of their own preferences, so that the consumer knows only the subjective probability of those alternatives being in any given relation, which is conditional on the information available to the consumer. To achieve that, we construct probabilistic measures on the space of all permissible preference relations and consider the consumer to be equipped with one such measure, instead of a preference relation. These measures are intrinsically linked by construction to the information structure available to the consumer and allow for indirect learning. We visualize how these measures correspond to the choices of the consumer, we consider three distinct decision procedures. These procedures formalize how under different assumptions regarding the underlying probability measure, the consumer guesses their own tastes. Finally, we use these measures to define value of the information provided by the consumption of a chosen alternative and study the properties of the preference ranking induced by it. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Uncertainty in economic decisions; Consumer preferences; Learning process; Experimental analysis

PL

Niepewność w decyzjach gospodarczych; Preferencje konsumenta; Proces uczenia się; Analiza eksperymentalna

• Czasopismo: Collegium of Economic Analysis SGH - Working Papers
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: nr 74
• Strony: 44

Twórcy

autor

Marek Kapera

• Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie

Bibliografia

• Ariely D., Wallsten T.S. (1995). Seeking subjective dominance in multidimensional space: an exploration of the asymmetric dominance effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63(3), p.223-232.
• Ariely D., Loewenstein G., Prelec, D. (2006). Tom Sawyer and the construction of value. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 60(1), p. 1-10.
• Ash, R.B. (1999). Probability and Measure Theory (2nd ed.). Academic Press, p.19.
• Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F. and Payne, J.W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research 25(3), p. 187-217.
• Bleichrodt H., Pinto Prades J.L. (2009). New evidence of preference reversals in health utility measurement, Health Economics 18(6), p. 713-726.
• Bordalo, P., Gennaioli N., Shleifer, A. (2012a). Salience in experimental tests of the endowment effect. American Economic Review 102(3), p. 47-52.
• Bordalo, P., Gennaioli N., Shleifer A., (2012b). Salience theory of choice under risk. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127(3), p. 1243-1285.
• Braga, J. and Starmer, C. (2005). Preference anomalies, preference elicitation and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental & Resource Economics 32, p. 55-89.
• Braga, J., Humphrey, S.J. and Starmer, C. (2009). Market experience eliminates some anomalies - and creates new ones, European Economic Review, 53(4), p.401-416.
• Bruni, L. and Sugden, R. (2007). The road not taken: how psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back. The Economic Journal, 117, p. 146-173.
• Butler D.J., Loomes G.C. (2007). Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon, American Economic Review 97(1), p. 277-297.
• Carlsson F., Mørkbak M.R., Olsen, S.B. (2012). The first time is the hardest: a test of ordering effects in choice experiments, Journal of Choice Modelling 5(2), p. 19-37.
• Cooke, K. (2017). Preference discovery and experimentation, Theoretical Economics, 12, 1307-1348.
• Coupey E. (1994). Restructuring: Constructive processing of information displays in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 21(1), p. 83-99.
• Cox J.C., Grether D.M. (1996). The preference reversal phenomenon: response mode, markets and incentives. Econ Theory 7, p. 381-405.
• Czajkowski M., Hanley N., LaRiviere, J. (2015). The effects of experience on preferences: theory and empirics for environmental public goods, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97, 333-351.
• Day B., Bateman I.J., Carson R.T., Dupont D., Louviere J.J, Morimoto S., Scarpa R., Wang P. (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(1), p. 73-91.
• Debreu G. (1954). Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function, pp.159-165, in: Thrall M., Davis R.C., Coombs C.H. (eds.), Decision Processes. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
• Debreu G. (1959). Theory of value. An axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
• Dekel E., Lipman B.L., Rustichini A. (2001). Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space, Econometrica 69(4).
• Delaney J.J., Jacobson S.A., Moenig T.P. (2014). Discovered preferences for risky and non-risky goods, Department of Economics Working Papers 2014-02, Williams College.
• Delaney J.J., Jacobson S.A., Moenig, T.P. (2019). Preference discovery. Experimental Economics.
• DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature 47(2), p. 315-72.
• Enderton, H.B. (2001). A Mathematical Introduction to logic (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
• Engelmann, D. and Hollard, G. (2010). Reconsidering the effect of market experience on the "endowment effect". Econometrica 78, p. 2005-2019.
• Epstein L.G., Noor J., Sandroni A., (2010). Non-bayesian learning, The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics 10(1).
• Gilboa I., Schmeidler D., (2001). A theory of case-based decisions, Cambridge University Press.
• Glöckner, A., Betsch, T. and Schindler, N. (2010). Coherence shifts in probabilistic inference tasks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 23(5), p. 439-462.
• Grether D., Plott, C. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review 69(4), p. 623-638.
• Guo L. (2021). Testing the role of contextual deliberation in the compromise effect, Management Science 0(0), p.1-19.
• Hoeffler S., Ariely D. (1999). Constructing stable preferences: a look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability, Journal of Consumer Psychology 8(2), p. 113-139.
• Huang, S., Su, X., Hu, Y., Mahadevan, S., Deng Y. (2014). A new decision making method by incomplete preferences based on evidence distance. Knowledge Based Systems 56, p. 264-272.
• Humphrey, S.J., Lindsay L., Starmer, C. (2017). Consumption experience, choice experience and the endowment effect, Journal of Economic Science Association, 3(2), p. 109-120.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1), p. 193-206.
• Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47(2), p. 263-91.
• Kannai Y. (1970). Continuity properties of the core of a market. Econometrica 38(6), p. 791-815.
• Kingsley, D.C. and Brown, T.C. (2010). Preference uncertainty, preference learning, and paired comparison experiments. Land Economics 86(3), p. 530-544.
• Kreps D.M. (1979). A representation theorem for 'preference for flexibility', Econometrica, 47(3), p. 565-577.
• Kuilen G. van de (2009). Subjective probability weighting and the discovered preference hypothesis. Theory and Decision 67, p. 1-22.
• Lerner, J.S., Li, Y., Valdesolo P., Kassam K.S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 66(1), p. 799-823.
• Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89, p. 46-55.
• Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. (1973). Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: an extended replication in Las Vegas, Journal of Experimental Psychology 101(1), p. 16-20.
• Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. (eds.) (2006). The construction of preference. Cambridge University Press.
• Loewenstein, G. and Issacharoff, S. (1994). Source dependence in the valuation of objects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 7(3), p. 157-168.
• Loomis, J. (2011). What's to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies?. Journal of Economic Surveys 25, p. 363-370.
• Loomes G., Sugden R. (1982). Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty, The Economic Journal 92(368), p.805-824.
• Loomes, G., Orr S., Sugden R. (2009). Taste uncertainty and status quo effects in consumer choice,. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 39(2), p. 113-135.
• Mandel N., Johnson E.J. (2002). When web pages influence choice: effects of visual primes on experts and novices. Journal of Consumer Research 29(2), p.235-245.
• Nowlis S.M., Simonson I. (1997). Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. Journal of Marketing Research 34(2), p.205-218.
• Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Schkade D.A. (1999). Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, p. 243-270.
• Piermont, E., Takeoka N., Teper R. (2016). Learning the Krepsian state: exploration through consumption, Games and Economic Behavior 100, p. 69-94.
• Plott C.R. (1996) Rational individual behaviour in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference hypothesis, pp.225-250, in: Arrow K.J., et al. (eds.). The rational foundations of economic behaviour: Proceedings of the IEA Conference held in Turin, Italy, IEA Conference Volume, no. 114, New York: St. Martin's Press; London: Macmillan Press in association with the International Economic Association.
• Plott C.R., Zeiler K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the "endowment effect," subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review 95(3), p. 530-545.
• Rizzo M.J., Whitman G. (2018). Rationality as a process, Review of Behavioral Economics 5,201-219.
• Savage, L.J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
• Schkade D.A., Johnson E.J. (1989). Cognitive processes in preference reversals, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 44(2), 203-231.
• Schkade D.A., Payne J.W. (1994). How people respond to contingent valuation questions: a verbal protocol analysis of willingness to pay for an environmental regulation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(1), p. 88-109.
• Simon H.A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality, in: Kastelein T.J., Kuipers S.K., Nijenhuis W.A., Wagenaar G.R. (eds.). 25 Years of Economic Theory. Springer, Boston, MA.
• Montgomery, H. (1998). Decision making and action, in: Kofta M., Weary G., Sedek G. (eds.) Personal Control in Action. The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA.
• Simon D., Krawczyk D.C., Holyoak K.J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science 15(5), p. 331-336.
• Simon, D., Krawczyk, D.C., Bleicher A., Holyoak, K.J. (2008). The transience of constructed preferences, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 21, p. 1-14.
• Simonson I., Tversky A., (1992). Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion, Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3): p. 281-295.
• Slovic P. (1995). The construction of preference, American Psychologist 50(5), p.364-371.
• Stigler G., Becker G. (1977) De gustibus non est disputandum, American Economic Review 67(2)76-90.
• Sugden R. (2003). Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory 111(2), p. 173-191.
• Trautmann S.T., Vieider D.M., Wakker P.P. (2011). Preference reversals for ambiguity aversion, Management Science, 57(7), p. 1320-1333.
• Tversky A., Sattath S., Slovic P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice, Psychological Review, 95, 371- 384.
• Warren C., McGraw A.P., Van Boven L. (2011). Values and preferences: defining preference construction, WIREs Cognitive Science, 2, 193-205.
• Wilson M.S. (2018). Rationality with preference discovery costs, Theory and Decision, 85, p. 233-251.