Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A “building code” for preference measurement is needed in a world in which many expressions of preference are constructed when people are asked a valuation question. Construction of preferences means that preference measurement is best viewed as architecture (building a set of values) rather than as archaeology (uncovering existing values). We describe potential faults in the process of preference construction, offer guidelines for measuring constructed preferences (a “building code”) to mitigate these faults, and discuss how the code must be sensitive to the purpose of the valuation (design vs. prediction).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, David A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alba, Joseph W. and Amitava Chattopadhyay. (1985). “Effects of Context and Part-Category Cues on Recall of Competing Brands,” Journal of Marketing Research 22, 340–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J. (1982). “Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics,” Economic Inquiry 20, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan. (1988). Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan. (1997). “Biases in the Quantitative Measurement of Values for Public Decisions,” Psychological Bulletin 122, 72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan and Joshua Greene. (1996). “Determinants of Insensitivity to Quantity in Valuation of Public Goods: Contribution, Warm Glow, Budget Constraints, Availability, and Prominence,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2, 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Jonathan and Mark D. Spranca. (1997). “Protected Values,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, Max H. and Margaret A. Neale. (1992). Negotiating Rationally.New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R., Mary Frances Luce, and John W. Payne. (1998). “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research 25, 187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R., John W. Payne, and Richard Staelin. (1986). “Cognitive Considerations in Designing Effective Labels for Presenting Risk Information,” Journal of Marketing and Public Policy 5, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, Robert T. (1996). Making Hard Decisions, 2nd edition. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeKay, Michael L. and Gary H. McClelland. (1996). “Probability and Utility Components of Endangered Species Preservation Programs,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2, 60–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaio, Theresa J. and Jennifer M. Rothgeb. (1996). “Cognitive Interviewing Techniques: In the Lab and in the Field.” In Norbert Schwarz and Seymour Sudman eds., Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitivie and Communication Processes in Surviey Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, Hillel J. (1972). “Expert Measurement and Mechanical Combination,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 7, 86–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989). “Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High Velocity Environments,” Academy of Management Journal 32, 543–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1989). “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intentions, and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 421–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch. (1991). “Value Elicitation: Is Anything in There?” American Psychologist 46, 835–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch. (1997). “What Do Psychologists Want? Contingent Valuation as a Special Case of Asking Questions.” In Raymond J. Kopp, Werner W. Pommerehne, and Norbert Schwartz eds., Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods: Economic, Psychological, and Policy Relevtiant Aspects of Contingent Valuation Methods. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch and Lita Furby. (1988). “Measuring Values: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Transactions with Special Reference to Contingent Valuation of Visibility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1, 147–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch, Marilyn Jacobs Quadrel, Mark Kamlet, George Loewenstein, Robyn Dawes, Paul Fishbeck, Steven Klepper, Jonathan Leland, and Patrick Stroh. (1993). “Embedding Effects: Stimulus Representation and Response Mode,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 211–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch, Paul Slovic, and Sarah Lichtenstein. (1980). “Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values.” In Thomas S. Wallsten ed., Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavtiior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, Baruch, Ned Welch, and Shane Frederick. (1999). “Construal Processes in Preference Assessment,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 139–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, A. Myrick, III. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, Deborah and Robert T. Clemen. (1994). “Beyond Expected Utility: Rethinking Behavioral Decision Research,” Psychological Bulletin 116, 46–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Paul E. and V. Srinivasan. (1990). “Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice,” Journal of Marketing 45, 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Robin, James Flynn, Stephen M. Johnson, Theresa A. Satterfield, Paul Slovic, and Robert Wagner. (1997). “Decision-Pathway Surveys: A Tool for Resource Managers,” Land Economics 73, 240–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Robin, Sarah Lichtenstein, and Paul Slovic. (1993). “Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7, 177–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grether, David M. and Charles R. Plott. (1979). “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” American Economic Revtiiew 69, 623–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, Kenneth R. (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevtiitable Error, Unavtioidable Injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, Kenneth R., Thomas R. Stewart, Berndt Brehmer, and D. O. Steinmann. (1975). “Social Judgment Theory.” In M. F. Kaplan and S. Schwartz eds., Human Judgment and Decision Processes. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Charles C., Howard E. A. Tinsley, and Dennis M. Donnelly. (1988). “Research Methods for Public Amenity Resource Valuation: Issues and Recommendations.” In George L. Peterson, B. L. Driver, and Robin Gregory eds., Amenity Resource Valuation: Integrating Economics With Other Disciplines. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, Robin M. (1987). Judgment and Choice, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, Christopher H., George F. Loewenstein, Sally Blount, and Max H. Bazerman. “Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 125, 576–590.

  • Huber, Joel. (1997). “What We Have Learned from 20 Years of Conjoint Research: When to Use Self-Explicated, Graded Pairs, Full Profiles or Choice Experiments.” In 1997 Sawtooth Conference Proceedings. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel, John G. Lynch, Jr., Kim P. Corfman, Jack Feldman, Morris C. Holbrook, Donald R. Lehmann, Bertrand Munier, David A. Schkade, and Itamar Simonson. (1997). “Thinking About Values in Prospect and Retrospect: Maximizing Experienced Utility,” Marketing Letters 8, 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Joel, Dick R. Wittink, John A. Fiedler, and Richard Miller. (1993). “The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Procedures in Predicting Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research 30, 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Julie R., David Schenk, Gary H. McClelland, William D. Schulze, Thomas Stewart, and Mark Thayer. (1990). “Urban Visibility: Some Experiments on the Contingent Valuation Method.” In C. V. Mathai ed., Visibility and Fine Particles. Pittsburgh, PA: Air and Waste Management Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jako, Robert A. and Kevin R. Murphy. (1990). “Distributional Ratings, Judgment Decomposition, and Their Impact on Interrater Agreement and Rating Accuracy,” Journal of Applied Psychology 75, 500–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, Irving L. and Leon Mann. (1977). Decision Making. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel. (1994). “New Challenges to the Rationality Assumption,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 150, 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, Ilana Ritov, and David A. Schkade. (1999). “Economic Preferences or Attitude Expression?: An Analysis of Dollar Responses to Public Issues,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 203–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, David A. Schkade, and Cass R. Sunstein. (1998). “Shared Outrage and Erratic Awards: The Psychology of Punitive Damages,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 49–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creativtie Decisionmaking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L. (1996). “Valuing Billions of Dollars,” In Richard J. Zeckhauser, Ralph L. Keeney, and James K. Sebenius eds., Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, Don N. (1990). “Decomposition and the Control of Error in Decision-Analytic Models.” In Robin M. Hogarth ed., Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, Don N. and David A. Schkade. (1993). “Information Displays in Decision Making,” Psychological Science 4, 221–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, Jon A. and Howard Schuman. (1988). “Attitude Intensity, Importance, and Certainty and Susceptibility to Response Effects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 940–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legrenzi, P., V. Girotto, and P. N. Johnson-Laird. (1993). “Focusing in Reasoning and Decision Making,” Cognition 49, 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, George and David A. Schkade. (1998). “Wouldn't It Be Nice? Predicting Future Feelings,” In Ed Diener, Norbert Schwartz, and Daniel Kahneman eds., Hedonic Psychology: Scientific Approaches to Enjoyment, Suffering, and Well-Being. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, Robert E., Jr. (1986). “Adaptive Behavior and Economic Theory,” Journal of Business 59, S401-S426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, Mary Frances. (1998). “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research 24, 409–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, Mary Frances, John W. Payne, and James R. Bettman. (1999). “Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty and Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research 36, 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, James G. (1978). “Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice,” Bell Journal of Economics 9, 587–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marder, Eric. (1997). The Laws of Choice. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Daniel. (1999). “Rationality for Economists,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 73–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Robert C. and Richard T. Carson. (1989). Using Survtieys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. (1993). “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation,” Federal Register 58, 4602–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, Donald A. (1988). The Psychology of Evtieryday Things. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, Paul C. (1998). “How Decision Makers Evaluate Alternatives and the Influence of Complexity,” Management Science 44, 1148–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W. (1976). “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 366–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. (1988). “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14, 534–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. (1992). “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology 43, 87–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, John W., James R. Bettman, and Eric J. Johnson. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, Charles R. (1996). “Rational Individual Behaviour in Markets and Social Choice Processes,” In Kenneth J. Arrow, Enrico Colombatto, Mark Perlman, and Christian Schmidt eds., The Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior. New York: St. Martins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posovac, Steven S., David M. Sanbonmatsu, and Russell H. Fazio. (1997). “Considering the Best Choice: Effects of the Salience and Accessibility of Alternatives on Attitude-Decision Consistency,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabin, Matthew. (1998). “Psychology and Economics,” Journal of Economic Literature 36, 11–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, Daniel and George Loewenstein. (1995). “Diversification Bias: Explaining the Discrepancy in Variety Seeking Between Combined and Separated Choices,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1, 34–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Milton. (1990). “The Making of Cruel Choices.” In P. Brett Hammond and Rob Coppock eds., Valuing Health Risks, Costs and Benefits for Environmental Decision Making: Report of a Conference. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. Edward. (1977). “The Value of Unit Price Information,” Journal of Marketing Research 14, 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. Edward and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1989). Decision Traps. New York: Fireside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, David A. and John W. Payne. (1994). “How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness-to-Pay for an Environmental Regulation,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26, 88–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, Paul J. H. (1991). “When and How to Use Scenario Planning: A Heuristic Approach with Illustration,” Journal of Forecasting 10, 549–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, Norbert. (1996). Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods, and the Logic of Conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. (1997). “Maximization and the Act of Choice,” Econometrica 65, 745–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, Roger N. (1964). “On Subjectively Optimum Selection among Multiattribute Alternatives.” In Maynard W. Shelley and Glenn L. Bryan eds., Human Judgments and Optimality. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, Carolyn J., Barbara A. Bickart, and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1993). “Capturing and Creating Public Opinion in Survey Research,” Journal of Consumer Research 20, 316–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Herbert A. (1955). “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, Paul. (1972). “From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculations—and Some Evidence—About Man's Ability to Process Information,” Oregon Research Institute Bulletin 12.

  • Slovic, Paul. (1995). “The Construction of Preference,” American Psychologist 50, 364–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, V. Kerry and William Desvousges. (1987). “An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes,” Journal of Political Economy 95, 89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, Seymour, Norman M. Bradburn, and Norbert Schwarz. (1996). Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. (1990). “Preferences and Politics,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20, 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos. (1996). “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Principles in Choice.” In Richard J. Zeckhauser, Ralph L. Keeney, and James K. Sebenius eds., Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, Shmuel Sattath, and Paul Slovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,” Psychological Review 95, 371–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban, Glen L., John R. Hauser, William J. Qualls, Bruce D. Weinberg, Jonathan D. Bohlmann, and Roberta A. Chicos. (1997). “Information Acceleration: Validation and Lessons from the Field,” Journal of Marketing Research 34, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, Detlof and Ward Edwards. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Timothy D. and Jonathan W. Schooler. (1991). “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 181–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. and Mary Ann Kriewall. (1980). “State-of-Mind Effects on the Accuracy with Which Utility Functions Predict Marketplace Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research 17, 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Peter L. and Barton Weitz. (1977). “Time Horizon Effects on Product Evaluation Strategies,” Journal of Marketing Research 14, 429–443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich, Daniel. (1991). Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, NC, 27708-0120

    John W. Payne & James R. Bettman

  2. Department of Management, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 78712-1174

    David A. Schkade

Authors
  1. John W. Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James R. Bettman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David A. Schkade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. & Schkade, D.A. Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 243–270 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007843931054

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007843931054

Search

Navigation