The meaning of indifference in choice behavior: Asymmetries in adjustments embodied in matching

Measuring and assessing people’s preferences is an intricate task that can be realized by different methods. Evidently, the different methods do not necessarily yield consistent results. In the present paper we examine the matching procedure and demonstrate inconsistencies within the method itself. It is shown that the inconsistencies stem from: (1) asymmetry in upward and downward matching (i.e., matching options by increasing or lowering values do not yield the same tradeoffs) and (2) participants’ tendency to match (adjust) the options such that they become more similar, eventually facilitating the choice process. Matching is the most straightforward method of eliciting indifference. Hence, the observed inconsistencies, encapsulated in the matching procedure, have direct implications for the construction of indifference curves (equal-utility contours) that are examined in the final section.     

Variety‐Seeking and Perceived Expertise

People often infer expertise from the choice of unique, rare, or sophisticated options. But might mere variety‐seeking also serve as a signal of expertise, and if so, how? Six studies show that the relationship between variety‐seeking and perceived expertise is not unidirectional and depends on the perceiver's own level of expertise. Category experts perceive lower variety‐seeking as indicative of discernment, which in turn increases perceived expertise in that category. Consequently, experts choose less variety to portray themselves as experts. In contrast, novices perceive high variety‐seeking as indicative of category breadth knowledge, which in turn increases their perception of category expertise. Consequently, novices choose more variety to portray themselves as experts. The findings make novel theoretical contributions to research on variety‐seeking, consumer expertise, and social perception, as well as practical contributions for marketers of product assortments and bundles.     

The structure of choice

An unsolved fundamental problem in decision science concerns the extent to which the nature of the perceived relationships among items in a set of alternatives influences how they are chosen. More specifically, given a choice set with n items, how does human choice behavior differ as a function of the perceived relationships between the items of the set? In what follows, we study this problem empirically and theoretically from the standpoint of the dimensional structure of the choice set. In particular, we use generalized invariance structure theory (GIST; Vigo, 2013, 2014) to propose an inverse relationship between the degree of concept learning difficulty of a choice set (as determined by its degree of invariance or internal coherence) and choice response times on its members. To our knowledge, this is the first model that precisely unifies these two fundamental constructs. On average, the model, without free parameters, accounts for nearly 90% of the variance in the data from our two response-time experiments.     

Intelligence and Extraversion in the neural evaluation of delayed rewards

Temporal discounting (TD), the preference for earlier, smaller rewards over delayed, larger rewards, is a pervasive phenomenon that covaries with Big Five personality traits and Intelligence (IQ). This study provides novel insight by identifying correlates for IQ and Extraversion in the neural representation of TD preferences. An intertemporal choice task was employed, where offers were sequentially presented, distinguishing between one evaluation phase (first offer is presented) and one comparison phase (second offer is presented and values are compared). IQ correlated with responses of caudate nucleus to the subjective values of the offers, suggesting a role of cognitive abilities in modulating reward responses. Extraversion correlated with the strength of functional connectivity of a reward evaluation network centered on ventromedial prefrontal cortex.     

Application of the generalized matching law to point-after-touchdown conversions and kicker selection in college football

Coaches make a variety of complex decisions in American-rules college football, especially related to point-after-touchdown (PAT) conversions and, historically, kicker selection. However, little research has characterized the pattern of these choices and whether they are sensitive to environmental manipulations, such as increased effort to score. In the present study, the generalized matching law (GML)—a model that predicts a linear relation between log-transformed choices for two alternatives and the amount of reinforcement garnered from them—was applied to PAT-conversion (1 point vs. 2 point) and kicker (soccer-style vs. conventional-style) selection using archived data from the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Overall, PAT-conversion and kicker selection exhibited matching. Further, narrowing the goal-post width was associated with decreased preference for one-point (relative to two-point) PAT attempts and enhanced sensitivity to increases in points scored from one-point (relative to two-point) PAT attempts. This investigation provides support for the ecological validity of the GML and demonstrates that complex decisions in football conform to an orderly pattern that can be described using the GML.