The current paper is the rst to report an experimental study of Min and Max induced rankings, i.e. a family of set rankings that require preferences over sets to be induced from comparison of the best and/or worst elements within those sets. When pitted against the Uniform Expected Utility criterion (UEU), the Min and Max induced rankings perform particularly worse in predicting real-life decision makers' preferences. The latter nding prompted us to investigate their axiomatic underpinnings by means of pairwise choice experiments. From this investigation, some important conclusions can be drawn: Axioms that prevent rankings to be based on total-goodness, as well as monotonicity conditions (ensuring that replacing a set element with a better one results in a better set) cannot be refuted. Axioms that rule out any utilization of the relative dierence in position of the elements and axioms that prevent rankings to be based on average-goodness are all systematically violated. The UEU criterion seems to meet the apparent shortcomings of the Min and Max induced rankings. Some frequently occurring preference patterns, however, suggest that a signicant portion of the participants uses neither a Min or Max induced ranking, nor UEU, but some other unspecied decision rule, possibly characterized by the tendency to prefer a diversication of uncertainty.
A decision under ‘complete uncertainty’ is one where the decision maker knows the set of possible outcomes for each decision, but cannot assign probabilities to those outcomes. This way, the problem of ranking decisions is reduced to a problem of ranking sets of outcomes. All rankings that have emerged in the literature in this domain imply transitivity. In the current study, transitivity is subjected to an empirical evaluation in two experiments, where subjects are asked to choose between sets of monetary consequences. After analysis with a Bayes Factor, very few violations of transitivity were found. It can be concluded that transitivity seems a plausible condition for the ranking of sets of monetary consequences
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) skills are receiving increased attention in the current workforce and in lifelong learning. In learning and labor contexts, successful teamwork is however not always guaranteed, due to several reasons, such as an unequal level of individual participation. Training in CPS for all groups is therefore needed. However, resources for CPS competence development are scarce. As part of our project entitled Supporting Teamwork in Ambient Learning Spaces (STEAMS), we, therefore, designed an interactive professional training on CPS, in which CPS is perceived both as a method and as a goal. In this paper, we outline the design process of our CPS training along with some crucial decisions we needed to make, and we aim to illustrate how implementing productive failure in the learning design can foster adults’ CPS-competencies development.
This paper presents an experimental investigation of the Uniform Expected Utility (UEU) criterion, a model for ranking sets of uncertain outcomes. We verified whether the two behavioral axioms characterizing UEU, i.e., Averaging and Restricted Independence, are satisfied in a pairwise choice experiment with monetary gains. Our results show that neither of these axioms holds in general. Averaging in particular, appears to be violated on a large scale. On the basis of the current study and a previous one, we can conclude that none of the models for set ranking that have been axiomatically characterized so far is able to model observed choices between sets of possible outcomes in a satisfactory fashion. In this paper we therefore lay out the foundations for a new descriptive model for set ranking: the Uniform Rank-Dependent Utility (URDU) criterion.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.