The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice
Abstract
Most economists define rationality in terms of consistency principles. These principles place “bounds” on rationality—bounds that range from perfect consistency to weak stochastic transitivity. Several decades of research on preferential choice has demonstrated how and when people violate these bounds. Many of these violations are interconnected and reflect systematic behavioral principles. We discuss the robustness of the violations and review the theories that are able to predict them. We further discuss the adaptive functions of the violations. From this perspective, choices do more than reveal preferences; they also reflect subtle, yet often quite reasonable, dependencies on the environment.
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
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Rational choice and the structure of the environment.
Simon, H. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0042769 · Cited by 5,919
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
Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality.
Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.4.650 · Cited by 3,504
Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice
Tversky, A. (1972) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0032955 · Cited by 3,365
Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 · Cited by 1,955
Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135213 · Cited by 317
Cited by
Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload
Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651235 · Cited by 1,070
Hare, T. A., Malmaud, J., & Rangel, A. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6383-10.2011 · Cited by 556
Uncertainty and risk in wildland fire management: A review
Thompson, M. P., & Calkin, D. E. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.015 · Cited by 343
Confused by too many choices? Choice overload in tourism
Park, J.-Y., & Jang, S. (. (2013) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.05.004 · Cited by 171
Evolution and impact of bias in human and machine learning algorithm interaction
Sun, W., Nasraoui, O., & Shafto, P. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0235502 · Cited by 116
Deep Choice Model Using Pointer Networks for Airline Itinerary Prediction
Mottini, A., & Acuna-Agost, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098005 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Rieskamp, J., Busemeyer, J. R., & Mellers, B. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Literature
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2006-08-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 631-661
- ISSN
- 0022-0515 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2051481424
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 7.60
- 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.
