The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The construction of preference.
Abstract
One of the main themes that has emerged from behavioral decision research during the past two decades is the view that people's preferences are often constructed-not merely revealed-in the process of elicitation.This conception is derived in part from studies demonstrating that normatively equivalent methods of elicitation often give rise to systematically different responses.These "preference reversals" violate the principle of procedure invariance fundamental to theories of rational choice and raise difficult questions about the nature of human values.If different elicitation procedures produce different orderings of options, how can preferences be defined and in what sense do they exist?Describing and explaining such failures of invariance will require choice models of far greater complexity than the traditional models.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Rational choice and the structure of the environment.
Simon, H. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042769 · Cited by 5,919
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173933 · Cited by 3,487
Cited by
Social Theory of International Politics
Wendt, A. (1999) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511612183 · Cited by 7,664
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043 · Cited by 2,913
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
Self-citationJohnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1091721 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Slovic, P.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 1995-05
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 364-371
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W1999943693
- Cited by
- 2,009
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.