Search for: All records

Traditional models of rational choice assume that preferences are complete, but the completeness axiom is neither normatively compelling nor psychologically plausible. Building on recent work in economics, we develop a rational analysis of decision making with incomplete preferences. The analysis sheds surprising light on a range of well-known behavioral “anomalies,” including the endowment effect, status quo maintenance, the sunk cost effect, and coherent arbitrariness. We propose a two-part division of rational choice theory—into preference theory and “implementation theory”—and show how conservative and coherently arbitrary policies can effectively implement incomplete preferences. The two-part normative framework motivates a psychological distinction between evaluation and implementation phases in decision making. We argue that the endowment effect and related phenomena, which have usually been attributed to loss aversion in the evaluation phase, are better explained by conservatism in the implementation phase. The rational analysis challenges the normative adequacy of expected utility theory and raises questions about the explanatory scope of prospect theory. It illustrates the rich interplay between psychological models of value structure and normative models of rational choice. 

Background and aimCitations in academia have long been regarded as a fundamental means of acknowledging the contribution of past work and promoting scientific advancement. The aim of this paper was to investigate the impact that misconduct allegations made against scholars have on the citations of their work, comparing allegations of sexual misconduct (unrelatedto the research merit) and allegations of scientific misconduct (directly relatedto the research merit). MethodsWe collected citation data from the Web of Science (WoS) in 2021, encompassing 31,941 publications from 172 accused and control scholars across 18 disciplines. We also conducted two studies: one on non-academics (N = 231) and one on academics (N = 240). ResultsThe WoS data shows that scholars accused of sexual misconduct incur a significant citation decrease in the three years after the accusations become public, while we do not detect a significant citation decrease for scholars accused of scientific misconduct. The study involving non-academics suggests that individuals are more averse to sexual than to scientific misconduct. Finally, contrary to the WoS data findings, a sample of academics indicates they are more likely to cite scholars accused of sexual misconduct than those accused of scientific misconduct. ConclusionsIn the first three years after accusations became public, scholars accused of sexual misconduct incur a larger citation penalty than scholars accused of scientific misconduct. However, when asked to predict their citing behavior, scholars indicated the reverse pattern, suggesting they might mis-predict their behavior or be reluctant to disclose their preferences.