PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12495953

Choosing deafness.

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

2003. Choosing deafness.. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.88.1.24

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The behavioral economics of consumer brand choice: patterns of reinforcement and utility maximization.

Purchasers of fast-moving consumer goods generally exhibit multi-brand choice, selecting apparently randomly among a small subset or "repertoire" of tried and trusted brands. Their behavior shows both matching and maximization, though it is not clear just what the majority of buyers are maximizing. Each brand attracts, however, a small percentage of consumers who are 100%-loyal to it during the period of observation. Some of these are exclusively buyers of premium-priced brands who are presumably maximizing informational reinforcement because their demand for the brand is relatively price-insensitive or inelastic. Others buy exclusively the cheapest brands available and can be assumed to maximize utilitarian reinforcement since their behavior is particularly price-sensitive or elastic. Between them are the majority of consumers whose multi-brand buying takes the form of selecting a mixture of economy -- and premium-priced brands. Based on the analysis of buying patterns of 80 consumers for 9 product categories, the paper examines the continuum of consumers so defined and seeks to relate their buying behavior to the question of how and what consumers maximize.

Choice Behavior↗

Human group behavior: the ideal free distribution in a three-patch situation.

A group of 15 college students was exposed to repeated trials of a task in which money was available for choosing among three colors (blue, red, and green). The amount of winning tokens for each color was varied across phases to test whether group distribution would track the ratio of winning tokens between patches. Confirming previous reports on ideal free performance in humans, group choice proved sensitive to the available resources but tended to undermatch the ratio of winning tokens. The difference-equalization rule of Sokolowski, Tonneau, and Freixa i Baqué [Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 6 (1999) 157] gave a satisfactory fit to the data.

Choice Behavior↗