Some thoughts on "A stochastic model for individual choice behaviour"

1960 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. Audley
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 625-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin W. Thomas ◽  
Felix Molter ◽  
Ian Krajbich ◽  
Hauke R. Heekeren ◽  
Peter N. C. Mohr

Biometrika ◽  
1961 ◽  
Vol 48 (1/2) ◽  
pp. 234 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. L. Mallows ◽  
R. Duncan Luce

1980 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tapas Majumdar

AbstractEconomists are used to associate the rationality of individual choice behaviour with simple and unchanging individual preference patterns, typically predicting unique behavioural outcomes in a choice situation − leaving little room for probing apparent inconsistencies (except in situations of game-theoretic stratagems used by the choosers), and no provision for analysing genuine dilemmas. The paper comments on the (in this respect) richer contents of two recent extensions of the concept of rational choice: the first involved in Sen’s theory of meta-ranking, and the second implied in Scitovsky’s distinction between “pleasure” and “comfort” as the two constituents of the state of individual welfare. The paper then proceeds to suggest a somewhat similar extension of rationality implied, it is argued, in the idea of “development” or “becoming” as part of a chosen, distinct, and articulated process involved, specifically, in education, or more vaguely, in “modernisation”. The emerging concept of rationality which permits of changes in individual preference patterns consistently, in steps, and in a direction initiated and chosen by the individual himself, is claimed in the paper to be more appropriate for the analysis of choice situations likely to be encountered by rational individuals in a complex developing society. The consistency conditions for individual behaviour permitted by such rich, “directional”, rationality have, however, yet to be specified.


1982 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 1047-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
D F Batten ◽  
J R Roy

Entropy-maximizing models have been focused predominantly at the microscopic level of social and economic activities, their use being advocated by urban geographers, mathematicians, and microeconomists. By maintaining a sharp distinction between the behavioural and statistical aspects of entropy, various submodels may be formulated to generate the most probable pattern of individual choice behaviour. It may nevertheless be possible to regard each submodel of activity as an essential component of some larger, more complex macromodel of the entire economy. Various forms of (simultaneous or sequential) macromodels could then be investigated by examining alternative linkage arrangements between the behavioural submodels.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document