The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dynamic, Stochastic, Computational Model of Preference Reversal Phenomena.
Abstract
Preference orderings among a set of options may depend on the elicitation method (e.g., choice or pricing); these preference reversals challenge traditional decision theories. Previous attempts to explain these reversals have relied on allowing utility of the options to change across elicitation methods by changing the decision weights, the attribute values, or the combination of this information--still, no theory has successfully accounted for all the phenomena. In this article, the authors present a new computational model that accounts for the empirical trends without changing decision weights, values, or combination rules. Rather, the current model specifies a dynamic evaluation and response process that correctly predicts preference orderings across 6 elicitation methods, retains stable evaluations across methods, and makes novel predictions regarding response distributions and response times.
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
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2937956 · Cited by 6,432
Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232669 · Cited by 4,042
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173933 · Cited by 3,487
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194 · cited 2×
“In particular, one may assume that the discrepancies between WTP and WTA are the result of different reference points, or " endowment effects " and aversion to losses (Kahneman et al., 1990; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991, 1992 ).”
BackgroundA Sequential Theory of Psychological Discrimination
Link, S. W., & Heath, R. A. (1975) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291481 · Cited by 492
Cited by
Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history
Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D., & McKoon, G. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007 · Cited by 1,630
Neuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data
Schultz, W. (2015) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00023.2014 · Cited by 1,126
Mindful Judgment and Decision Making
Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633 · Cited by 745
Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and confidence.
Pleskac, T. J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0019737 · Cited by 722
Self-citationNew paradoxes of risky decision making.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.463 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 841-861
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W1979425569
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 4.02
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Dynamic, Stochastic, Computational Model of Preference Reversal Phenomena. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.112.4.841
- The paper
- Johnson, J. G., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2005). A Dynamic, Stochastic, Computational Model of Preference Reversal Phenomena. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.4.841
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.
