About: Preference is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21334 publications have been published within this topic receiving 456328 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: This paper proposes a new method, based on ranks of components by usage and by availability, that results in a ranking of the components on the basis of preference, and permits significance tests of the ranking.
Abstract: Modern ecological research often involves the comparison of the usage of habitat types or food items to the availability of those resources to the animal. Widely used methods of determining preference from measurements of usage and availability depend critically on the array of components that the researcher, often with a degree of arbitrariness, deems available to the animal. This paper proposes a new method, based on ranks of components by usage and by availability. A virtue of the rank procedure is that it provides comparable results whether a questionable component is included or excluded from consideration. Statistical tests of significance are given for the method. The paper also offers a hierarchical ordering of selection processes. This hierarchy resolves certain inconsistencies among studies of selection and is compatible with the analytic technique offered in the paper. Central to the study of animal ecology is the usage an animal makes of its environment: specifically, the kinds of foods it consumes and the varieties of habitats it occupies. Many analytic procedures have been de- vised to treat data on the usage of such resources, particularly in relation to information on their avail- ability to the animal, for the purpose of determining "preference." The objectives of this report are to de- scribe the problem of determining preference by com- paring usage and availability data, to illustrate a seri- ous shortcoming in the routine application of most procedures for comparing these data, and to suggest a new method that resolves this difficulty. The pro- posed technique results in a ranking of the components on the basis of preference, and permits significance tests of the ranking.
TL;DR: In this article, a distinction is drawn between self-correction and other-correction, i.e., correction by the speaker of that which is being corrected vs. correction by some "other".
Abstract: An "organization of repair' operates in conversation, addressed to recurrent problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding. Several features of that organization are introduced to explicate the mechanism which produces a strong empirical skewing in which self-repair predominates over other-repair, and to show the operation of a preference for self-repair in the organization of repair. Several consequences of the preference for self-repair for conversational interaction are sketched.* 1. SELF- AND OTHER-CORRECTION. Among linguists and others who have at all concerned themselves with the phenomenon of'correction' (or, as we shall refer to it, 'repair'; cf. below, ?2.1), a distinction is commonly drawn between 'selfcorrection' and 'other-correction', i.e. correction by the speaker of that which is being corrected vs. correction by some 'other'.l Sociologists take an interest in such a distinction; its terms-'self' and 'other'-have long been understood as central to the study of social organization and social interaction.2 For our concerns in this paper, 'self' and 'other' are two classes of participants in interactive social
TL;DR: This paper introduced a three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as a simple measure of one type of cognitive ability, i.e., the ability or disposition to reflect on a question and resist reporting the first response that comes to mind.
Abstract: This paper introduces a three-item "Cognitive Reflection Test" (CRT) as a simple measure of one type of cognitive ability—the ability or disposition to reflect on a question and resist reporting the first response that comes to mind. The author will show that CRT scores are predictive of the types of choices that feature prominently in tests of decision-making theories, like expected utility theory and prospect theory. Indeed, the relation is sometimes so strong that the preferences themselves effectively function as expressions of cognitive ability—an empirical fact begging for a theoretical explanation. The author examines the relation between CRT scores and two important decision-making characteristics: time preference and risk preference. The CRT scores are then compared with other measures of cognitive ability or cognitive "style." The CRT scores exhibit considerable difference between men and women and the article explores how this relates to sex differences in time and risk preferences. The final section addresses the interpretation of correlations between cognitive abilities and decision-making characteristics.
TL;DR: The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) includes both the rating and comparison methods and requires developing a reliable hierarchic structure or feedback network that includes criteria of various types of influence, stakeholders, and decision alternatives to determine the best choice.
Abstract: People make three general types of judgments to express importance, preference, or likelihood and use them to choose the best among alternatives in the presence of environmental, social, political, and other influences. They base these judgments on knowledge in memory or from analyzing benefits, costs, and risks. From past knowledge, we sometimes can develop standards of excellence and poorness and use them to rate the alternatives one at a time. This is useful in such repetitive situations as student admissions and salary raises that must conform with established norms. Without norms one compares alternatives instead of rating them. Comparisons must fall in an admissible range of consistency. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) includes both the rating and comparison methods. Rationality requires developing a reliable hierarchic structure or feedback network that includes criteria of various types of influence, stakeholders, and decision alternatives to determine the best choice.
TL;DR: The authors update and extend their 1978 review of conjoint analysis, discussing several new developments and considering alternative approaches for measuring preference structures in the presence of a large number of attributes.
Abstract: The authors update and extend their 1978 review of conjoint analysis. In addition to discussing several new developments, they consider alternative approaches for measuring preference structures in...
Trending Questions (10)