scholarly journals Solutions for Games with General Coalitional Structure and Choice Sets

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gleb A. Koshevoy ◽  
Takamasa Suzuki ◽  
Dolf J. J. Talman
Keyword(s):  
Coalitional Structure ◽  
Choice Sets

An MEG study of neurological difference in decoy and non-decoy choice sets

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Hedgcock ◽  
David Crowe ◽  
Apostolos Georgopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Choice Sets

scholarly journals Travel-Time Constraints on Destination-Choice Sets

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Claude Thill ◽  
Joel L. Horowitz
Keyword(s):  
Travel Time ◽  
Destination Choice ◽  
Time Constraints ◽  
Choice Sets

Choice, pressure and markets in kidneys

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 310-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Koplin
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Donation ◽  
Living Kidney Donation ◽  
Legal Market ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
Choice Sets ◽  
Financial Pressures

We do not always benefit from the expansion of our choice sets. This is because some options change the context in which we must make decisions in ways that render us worse off than we would have been otherwise. One promising argument against paid living kidney donation holds that having the option of selling a ‘spare’ kidney would impact people facing financial pressures in precisely this way. I defend this argument from two related criticisms: first, that having the option to sell one’s kidney would only be harmful if one is pressured or coerced to take this specific course of action; and second, that such forms of pressure are unlikely to feature in a legal market.

Using Notches to Uncover Optimization Frictions and Structural Elasticities: Theory and Evidence from Pakistan *

2013 ◽  
Vol 128 (2) ◽  
pp. 669-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik J. Kleven ◽  
Mazhar Waseem
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Data ◽  
Behavioral Response ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
Tax Incentives ◽  
Missing Mass ◽  
Zero Mass ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Choice Sets ◽  
Price Distortions

Abstract We develop a framework for nonparametrically identifying optimization frictions and structural elasticities using notches—discontinuities in the choice sets of agents—introduced by tax and transfer policies. Notches create excess bunching on the low-tax side and missing mass on the high-tax side of a cutoff, and they are often associated with a region of strictly dominated choice that would have zero mass in a frictionless world. By combining excess bunching (observed response attenuated by frictions) with missing mass in the dominated region (frictions), it is possible to uncover the structural elasticity that would govern behavior in the absence of frictions and arguably capture long-run behavior. We apply our framework to tax notches in Pakistan using rich administrative data. While observed bunching is large and sharp, optimization frictions are also very large as the majority of taxpayers in dominated ranges are unresponsive to tax incentives. The combination of large observed bunching and large frictions implies that the frictionless behavioral response to notches is extremely large, but the underlying structural elasticity driving this response is nevertheless modest. This highlights the inefficiency of notches: by creating extremely strong price distortions, they induce large behavioral responses even when structural elasticities are small.

scholarly journals How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Mulhern ◽  
Richard Norman ◽  
Koonal Shah ◽  
Nick Bansback ◽  
Louise Longworth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Health States ◽  
Choice Sets

Rejecting options from large and small choice sets: the mediating role of confidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (9/10) ◽  
pp. 1845-1863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene Chan ◽  
Yitong Wang
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Focus ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Choice Overload ◽  
Behavioral Experiments ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mediating Role ◽  
Decision Confidence ◽  
Selection Decisions ◽  
Choice Sets ◽  
Two Alternatives

Purpose Literature on choice has predominantly focused on selection decisions rather than rejection decisions. Research on rejection decisions has also only studied rejecting one option from two alternatives. This research aims to study the differences in decision confidence and satisfaction in rejection decisions between choice sets of small and large sizes. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted three behavioral experiments in which they first tested the overall effect (Experiment 1) and then found out whether regulatory focus (Experiment 2) and the attractiveness of options (Experiment 3) moderated it. Findings The authors observed that decision satisfaction increased when rejecting larger (vs smaller) choice sets. Decision confidence mediated it (Experiment 1). The effect was strongest when participants had a prevention focus (Experiment 2) and when they were rejecting relatively unattractive options (Experiment 3). Research limitations/implications This research expands the understanding of how individuals make rejection-based decisions and in particular how individuals make choices for one option out of many as in the selection-based choice overload literature. Practical implications The authors show how choice sets of varying sizes affect rejection decisions commonly faced by managers and consumers. This research provides implications for improving confidence and satisfaction, both of which are important elements of everyday decision-making, by suggesting that choice outcomes may differ depending on whether one is making a selection or a rejection decision and whether the choice set size is small or large. Originality/value This is the first study to examine rejection decisions with more than two alternatives. The findings complement the large body of work on the choice overload effect that focuses on selection decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document