HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Annu Rev Sociol. 2017 July ; 43: 207–227. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053622.

Decision-Making Processes in Social Contexts

Elizabeth Bruch and
Department of Sociology and Complex Systems

Fred Feinberg
Ross School of Business and Statistics
Author Manuscript

Abstract
Over the past half-century, scholars in the interdisciplinary field of Judgment and Decision
Making have amassed a trove of findings, theories, and prescriptions regarding the processes
ordinary people enact when making choices. But this body of knowledge has had little influence
on sociology. Sociological research on choice emphasizes how features of the social environment
shape individual behavior, not people’s underlying decision processes. Our aim in this article is to
provide an overview of selected ideas, models, and data sources from decision research that can
fuel new lines of inquiry on how socially situated actors navigate both everyday and major life
choices. We also highlight opportunities and challenges for cross-fertilization between sociology
and decision research that can allow the methods, findings, and contexts of each field to expand
their joint range of inquiry.
Author Manuscript

Keywords
heuristics; decision making; micro-sociology; discrete choice

INTRODUCTION
Over the past several decades, there has been an explosion of interest in, and recognition of
the importance of, how people make decisions. From Daniel Kahneman’s 2002 Nobel Prize
for his work on “Heuristics and Biases,” to the rise in prominence of Behavioral Economics,
to the burgeoning policy applications of behavioral “nudges” (Kahneman 2003; Camerer &
Loewenstein 2004; Shafir 2013), both scholars and policy makers increasingly focus on
choice processes as a key domain of research and intervention. Researchers in the
Author Manuscript

interdisciplinary field of Judgment and Decision Making (JDM)—which primarily

comprises cognitive science, behavioral economics, academic marketing, and organizational
behavior—have generated a wealth of findings, insights, and prescriptions regarding how
people make choices. In addition, with the advent of rich observational data from purchase
histories, a related line of work has revolutionized statistical models of decision making that
aim to represent underlying choice process.

*
Please direct correspondence to Elizabeth Bruch at: 500 S. State Street, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, 48104.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 2

But for the most part these models and ideas have not penetrated sociology.1 We believe
Author Manuscript

there are several reasons for this. First, JDM research has largely been focused on
contrasting how a fully informed, computationally unlimited (i.e., “rational”) person would
behave to how people actually behave, and pointing out systematic deviations from this
normative model (Loewenstein 2001). Since sociology never fully embraced the rational
choice model of behavior, debunking it is less of a disciplinary priority.2 Second, JDM
research is best known for its focus on problems that involve risk, where the outcome is
probabilistic and the payoff probabilities are known (Kahneman & Tversky 1979, 1982,
1984), and ambiguity, where the outcome is probabilistic and the decision-maker does not
have complete information on payoff probabilities (Ellsberg 1961; Einhorn & Hogarth 1988;
Camerer & Weber 1992). In both these cases, there is an optimal choice to be made, and the
research explores how people’s choices deviate from that answer. But most sociological
problems—such as choosing a romantic partner, neighborhood, or college—are
Author Manuscript

characterized by obscurity: there is no single, obvious, optimal, or correct answer.

Perhaps most critically, the JDM literature has by and large minimized the role of social
context in decision processes. This is deliberate. Most experiments performed by
psychologists are designed to isolate processes that can be connected with features of
decision tasks or brain functioning; it is incumbent on researchers working in this tradition
to “de-socialize” the environment and reduce it to a single aspect or theoretically predicted
confluence of factors. Although there is a rich body of work on how heuristics are matched
to particular decision environments (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier 2011), these environments are
by necessity often highly stylized laboratory constructs aimed at exerting control over key
features of the environment.3 This line of work intentionally de-emphasizes or eliminates
aspects of realistic social environments, which limits its obvious relevance for sociologists.
Author Manuscript

Finally, there is the challenge of data availability: sociologists typically do not observe the
intermediate stages by which people arrive at decision outcomes. For example, researchers
can fairly easily determine what college a person attended, what job they chose, or whom
they married, but they rarely observe how they got to that decision—that is, how people
learned about and evaluated available options, and which options were excluded either
because they were infeasible or unacceptable. But such process data can be collected in a
number of different ways, as detailed later in this article. Moreover, opportunities to study
sociologically relevant decision processes are rapidly expanding, owing to the advent of
disintermediated sources like the Internet and smart phones, which allow researchers to
observe human behavior at a much finer level of temporal and geographic granularity than
ever before. Equally important, these data often contain information on which options
people considered, but ultimately decided against. Such activity data provide a rich source of
Author Manuscript

information on sociologically relevant decision processes (Bruch et al. 2016).

1A notable exception is Herb Simon’s concept of “satisficing,” which many influential sociological works—especially in the subfield
of economic sociology—have incorporated into models of action and behavior (e.g., Baker 1984; Granovetter 1985; Uzzi 1997;
Beckert 1996).
2Although rational choice has had a strong influence sociological research—for example, Coleman’s (1994) Foundations of Social
Theory has almost 30,000 citations and there is a journal, Rationality and Society, devoted to related topics—this framework never
overtook the discipline as it did economics.
3While this is accurate as a broad characterization, there are studies that examine decision-making “in the wild” through observation
or field experiments (e.g., Camerer 2004; Barberis 2013).

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 3

We believe that the time is ripe for a new line of work that draws on insights from cognitive
Author Manuscript

science and decision theory to examine choice processes and how they play out in social
environments. As we discuss in the next section, sociology and decision research offer
complementary perspectives on decision-making and there is much to be gained from
combining them. One benefit of this union is that it can deepen sociologists’ understanding
of how and why individual outcomes differ across contexts. By leveraging insights on how
contextual factors and aspects of choice problems influence decision strategies, sociologists
can better pinpoint how, why, and when features of the social environment trigger and shape
human behavior. This also presents a unique opportunity for cross-fertilization. While
sociologists can draw from the choice literature’s rich understanding of and suite of tools to
probe decision processes, work on decision-making can also benefit from sociologists’
insights into how social context enables or constrains behavior.

The literature on judgment and decision-making is enormous; our goal here is to offer a
Author Manuscript

curated introduction aimed at social scientists new to this area. In addition to citing recent
studies, we deliberately reference the classic and integrative literature in this field so that
researchers can acquaint themselves with the works that introduced these ideas, and gain a
comfortable overview to it. We highlight empirical studies of decision making that help
address how people make critical life decisions, such as choosing a neighborhood, college,
life partner, or occupation. Thus, our focus is on research that is relevant for understanding
decision processes characterized by obscurity, where there is no obvious correct or optimal
answer. Due to its selective nature, our review does not include a discussion of several major
areas of the JDM literature, most notably Prospect Theory, which focuses on how people can
distort both probabilities and outcome values when these are known (to the researcher) with
certainty; we also do not discuss the wide range of anomalies documented in human
cognition, for example mental accounting, the endowment effect, and biases such as
Author Manuscript

availability or anchoring (Tversky & Kahneman 1973; Kahneman & Tversky 1973, 1981;
Kahneman et al. 1991).

The balance of the article is as follows. We first explain how decision research emerged as a
critique of rational choice theory, and show how these models of behavior complement
existing work on action and decision-making in sociology. The core of the paper provides an
overview of how cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors shape decision processes. We
then introduce the data and methods commonly used to study choice processes. Decision
research relies on a variety of data sources, including results from lab and field experiments,
surveys, brain scans, and observations of in-store shopping and other behavior. We discuss
their relative merits, and provide a brief introduction to statistical modeling approaches. We
close with some thoughts about opportunities and challenges for sociologists wanting to
Author Manuscript

incorporate insights and methods from the decision literature into their research programs.

SOCIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSEPCTIVES ON DECISION

PROCESSES
To understand how sociology and psychology offer distinct but complementary views of
decision processes, we begin with a brief introduction to the dominant model of human

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 4

decision-making in the social sciences: rational choice theory. This model, endemic to
Author Manuscript

neoclassical economic analyses, has permeated into many fields including sociology,
anthropology, political science, philosophy, history, and law (Coleman 1991; Gely & Spiller
1990; Satz & Ferejohn 1994; Levy 1997). In its classic form, the rational choice model of
behavior assumes that decision makers have full knowledge of the relevant aspects of their
environment, a stable set of preferences for evaluating choice alternatives, and unlimited
skill in computation (Samuelson 1947; Von Neumann & Morgenstern 2007; Becker 1993).
Actors are assumed to have a complete inventory of possible alternatives of action; there is
no allowance for focus of attention or a search for new alternatives (Simon 1991, p. 4).
Indeed, a distinguishing feature of the classic model is its lack of attention to the process of
decision-making. Preference maximization is a synonym for choice (McFadden 2001, p. 77).

Rational choice has a long tradition in sociology, but its popularity increased in the 1980s
and 1990s, partly as a response to concern within sociology about the growing gap between
Author Manuscript

social theory and quantitative empirical research (Coleman 1986). Quantitative data analysis,
despite focusing primarily on individual-level outcomes, is typically conducted without any
reference to—let alone a model of—individual action (Goldthorpe 1996; Esser 1996).
Rational choice provides a theory of action that can anchor empirical research in meaningful
descriptions of individuals’ behavior (Hedström & Swedberg 1996). Importantly, the choice
behavior of rational actors can also be straightforwardly implemented in regression-based
models readily available in statistical software packages. Indeed while some scholars
explicitly embrace rational choice as a model of behavior (Hechter and Kanazawa 1997;
Kroneberg and Kalter 2012), many others implicitly adopt it in their quantitative models of
individual behavior.

Beyond Rational Choice

Author Manuscript

Sociologists have critiqued and extended the classical rational choice model in a number of
ways. They have observed that people are not always selfish actors who behave in their own
best interests (England 1989; Margolis 1982), that preferences are not fixed characteristics
of individuals (Lindenberg and Frey 1993; Munch 1992), and that individuals do not always
behave in ways that are purposive or optimal (Somers 1989; Vaughan 1998). Most relevant
to this article, sociologists have argued that the focus in classical rational choice on the
individual as the primary unit of decision-making represents a fundamentally asocial
representation of behavior. In moving beyond rational choice, theories of decision-making in
sociology highlight the importance of social interactions and relationships in shaping
behavior (Pescosolido 1992; Emirbayer 1997). A large body of empirical work reveals how
social context shapes people’s behavior across a wide range of domains, from neighborhood
and school choice to decisions about friendship and intimacy to choices about eating,
Author Manuscript

drinking, and other health-related behaviors (Carrillo et al. 2016; Perna and Titus 2005;
Small 2009; Pachucki et al. 2011; Rosenquist et al. 2010).

But This focus on social environments and social interactions has inevitably led to less
attention being paid to the individual-level processes that underlie decision-making. In
contrast, psychologists and decision theorists aiming to move beyond rational choice have
focused their attention squarely on how individuals make decisions. In doing so, they have

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 5

amassed several decades of work showing that the rational choice model is a poor
representation of this process.4 Their fundamental critique is that decision-making, as
Author Manuscript

envisioned in the rational choice paradigm, would make overwhelming demands on our
capacity to process information (Bettman 1979; Miller 1956; Payne 1976). Decision-makers
have limited time for learning about choice alternatives, limited working memory, and
limited computational capabilities (Miller 1956; Payne et al.1993) As a result, they use
heuristics that keep the information-processing demands of a task within the bounds of their
limited cognitive capacity.5 It is now widely recognized that the central process in human
problem solving is to apply heuristics that carry out highly selective navigations of problem
spaces (Newell & Simon 1972).

However, in their efforts to zero in on the strategies people use to gather and process
information, psychological studies of decision-making have focused largely on individuals
in isolation. Thus, sociological and psychological perspectives on choice are complementary
Author Manuscript

in that they each emphasize a feature of decision-making that the other field has left largely
undeveloped. For this reason, and as we articulate further in the conclusion, we believe there
is great potential for cross-fertilization between these areas of research. Because our central
aim is to introduce sociologists to the JDM literature, we do not provide an exhaustive
discussion of sociological work relevant to understanding decision processes. Rather, we
highlight studies that illustrate the fruitful connections between sociological concerns and
JDM research.

In the next sections, we discuss the role of different factors—cognitive, emotional, and
contextual—in heuristic decision processes.

THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE FACTORS IN DECISION PROCESSES

Author Manuscript

There are two major challenges in processing decision-related information: first, each choice
is typically characterized by multiple attributes, and no alternative is optimal on all
dimensions; and, second, more than a tiny handful of information can overwhelm the
cognitive capacity of decision makers (Cowan 2010). Consider the problem of choosing
among three competing job offers. Job 1 has high salary, but a moderate commuting time
and a family-unfriendly workplace. Job 2 offers a low salary, but has a family-friendly
workplace and short commuting time. Job 3 has a family-friendly workplace but a moderate
salary and long commuting time. This choice would be easy if one alternative clearly
dominated on all attributes. But, as is often the case, they all involve making tradeoffs and
require the decision maker to weigh the relative importance of each attribute. Now imagine
that, instead of three choices, there were ten, a hundred, or even a thousand potential
alternatives. This illustrates the cognitive challenge faced by people trying to decide among
Author Manuscript

neighborhoods, potential romantic partners, job opportunities, or health care plans.

4The best-known critique of the rational choice model within JDM comes from the “Heuristics and Biases” school of research
(Tversky 1972; Kahneman & Tversky 1979; Tversky & Kahneman 1981). Their studies show that decision makers: (1) have trouble
processing information; (2) use decision-making heuristics that do not maximize preferences; (3) are sensitive to context and process;
and (4) systematically misperceive features of their environment. Since then, a large body of work provides convincing evidence that
individuals are “limited information processing systems” (Newell & Simon 1972; Kahneman 2003).
5Heuristics are “problem-solving methods that tend to produce efficient solutions to difficult problems by restricting the search
through the space of possible solutions, on the basis of some evaluation of the structure of the problem” (Braunstein 1972, p. 520).

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 6

We focus in this section on choices that involve deliberation, for example deciding where to
live, what major to pursue in college, or what jobs to apply for.6 (This is in contrast to
Author Manuscript

decisions that are made more spontaneously, such as the choice to disclose personal
information to a confidant [Small & Sukhu 2016].) Commencing with the pioneering work
of Howard & Sheth (1969), scholars have accumulated substantial empirical evidence for the
idea that such decisions are typically made sequentially, with each stage reducing the set of
potential options (Swait 1984; Roberts & Lattin 1991, 1997). For a given individual, the set
of potential options can first be divided into the set that he or she knows about, and those of
which he or she is unaware. This “awareness set” is further divided into options the person
would consider, and those that are irrelevant or unattainable. This smaller set is referred to as
the consideration set, and the final decision is restricted to options within that set.

Research in consumer behavior suggests that the decision to include certain alternatives in
the consideration set can be based on markedly different heuristics and criteria than the final
Author Manuscript

choice decision (e.g., Payne 1976; Bettman & Park 1980; Salisbury & Feinberg 2012). In
many cases, people use simple rules to restrict the energy involved in searching for options,
or to eliminate options from future consideration. For example, a high school student
applying to college may only consider schools within commuting distance of home, or
schools where someone she knows has attended. Essentially, people favor less cognitively
taxing rules that use a small number of choice attributes earlier in the decision process to
eliminate almost all potential alternatives, but take into account a wider range of choice
attributes when evaluating the few remaining alternatives for the final decision (Liu & Dukes
2013).

Once the decision maker has narrowed down his or her options, the final choice decision
may allow different dimensions of alternatives to be compensatory; in other words, a less
Author Manuscript

attractive value on one attribute may be offset by a more attractive value on another attribute.
However, a large body of decision research demonstrates that strategies to screen potential
options for consideration are non-compensatory; a decision-maker’s choice to eliminate
from or include for consideration based on one attribute will not be compensated by the
value of other attributes. In other words, compensatory decision rules are “continuous,”
while non-compensatory decision rules are discontinuous or threshold (Swait 2001; Gilbride
& Allenby 2004).

Compensatory Decision Rules

The implicit decision rule used in statistical models of individual choice and the normative
decision rule for rational choice is the weighted additive rule. Under this choice regime,
decision-makers compute a weighted sum of all relevant attributes of potential alternatives.
Author Manuscript

Choosers develop an overall assessment of each choice alternative by multiplying the

attribute weight by the attribute level (for each salient attribute), and then sum over all
attributes. This produces a single utility value for each alternative. The alternative with the

6The decision strategies presented in this section are sometimes known as “reasons” heuristics (c.f., Gigerenzer 2004) because they
are the reasons people give for why they chose the way that they did. As such, they are less applicable in situations where people have
few if any options. For example, a person evicted from their home may have a single alternative to homelessness: staying with a family
member. In this case, the difficulty of the decision is not information processing.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 7

highest value is selected, by assumption. Any conflict in values is assumed to be confronted

Author Manuscript

and resolved by explicitly considering the extent to which one is willing to trade off attribute
values, as reflected by the relative importance or beta coefficients (Payne et al. 1993, p. 24).
Using this rule involves substantial computational effort and processing of information.

A simpler compensatory decision rule is the tallying rule, known to most of us as a “pro and
con” list (Alba & Marmorstein 1987). This strategy ignores information about the relative
importance of each attribute. To implement this heuristic, a decision maker decides which
attribute values are desirable or undesirable. Then she counts up the number desirable versus
undesirable attributes. Strictly speaking, this rule forces people to make trade-offs among
different attributes. However, it is less cognitively demanding than the weighted additive
rule, as it does not require people to specify precise weights associated with each attribute.
But both rules require people to examine all information for each alternative, determine the
sums associated with each alternative, and compare those sums.
Author Manuscript

Non-Compensatory Decision Rules

Non-compensatory decision rules do not require decision makers to explicitly consider all
salient attributes of an alternative, assign numeric weights to each attribute, or compute
weighted sums in one’s head. Thus they are far less cognitively taxing than compensatory
rules. The decision maker need only examine the attributes that define cutoffs in order to
make a decision (to exclude options for a conjunctive rule, or to include them for a
disjunctive one). The fewer attributes that are used to evaluate a choice alternative, the less
taxing the rule will be.

Conjunctive rules require that an alternative must be acceptable on one or more salient
attributes. For example, in the context of residential choice, a house that is unaffordable will
Author Manuscript

never be chosen, no matter how attractive it is. Similarly, a man looking for romantic
partners on an online dating website may only search for women who are within a 25-mile
radius and do not have children. Potential partners who are unacceptable on either dimension
are eliminated from consideration. So conjunctive screening rules identify “deal-breakers”;
being acceptable on all dimensions is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for being
chosen.

A disjunctive rule dictates that an alternative is considered if at least one of its attributes is
acceptable to chooser i. For example, a sociology department hiring committee may always
interview candidates with four or more American Journal of Sociology publications,
regardless of their teaching record or quality of recommendations. Similarly (an especially
evocative yet somewhat fanciful example), a disjunctive rule might occur for the
Author Manuscript

stereotypical “gold-digger” or “gigolo,” who targets all potential mates with very high
incomes regardless of their other qualities. Disjunctive heuristics are also known as “take-
the-best” or “one good reason” heuristics that base their decision on a single overriding
factor, ignoring all other attributes of decision outcomes (Gigerenzer & Goldstein 1999;
Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier 2011; Gigerenzer 2008).

While sociologists studying various forms of deliberative choice do not typically identify the
decision rules used, a handful of empirical studies demonstrate that people do not consider

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 8

all salient attributes of all potential choice alternatives. For example, Krysan and Bader
Author Manuscript

(2009) find that white Chicago residents have pronounced neighborhood “blind spots” that
essentially restrict their knowledge of the city to a small number of ethnically homogeneous
neighborhoods. Daws and Brown (2002 Daws and Brown (2004) find that, when choosing a
college, UK students’ awareness and choice sets differ systematically by socioeconomic
status. Finally, in a recent study of online mate choice, Bruch and colleagues (2016) build on
insights from marketing and decision research to develop a statistical model that allows for
multistage decision processes with different (potentially noncompensatory) decision rules at
each stage. They find that conjunctive screeners are common at the initial stage of online
mate pursuit, and precise cutoffs differ by gender and other factors.

THE ROLE OF EMOTIONAL FACTORS IN DECISION PROCESSES

Early decision research emphasized the role of cognitive processes in decision-making (e.g.,
Author Manuscript

Newell & Simon 1972). But more recent work shows that emotions—not just strong
emotions like anger and fear, but also “faint whispers of emotions” known as affect (Slovic
et al. 2004, p. 312)—play an important role in decision-making. Decisions are cast with a
certain valence, and this shapes the choice process on both conscious and unconscious
levels. In other words, even seemingly deliberative decisions, like what school to attend or
job to take, may be made not just through careful processing of information, but based on
intuitive judgments of how a particular outcome feels (Loewenstein & Lerner 2003; Lerner
et al. 2015). This is true even in situations where there is numeric information about the
likelihood of certain events (Denes-Raj & Epstein 1994; Windschitl & Weber 1999; Slovic
et al. 2000). This section focuses on two topics central to this area: first, that people dislike
making emotional tradeoffs, and will go to great lengths to avoid them; and second, how
emotional factors serve as direct inputs into decision processes.7
Author Manuscript

Emotions Shape Strategies for Processing Information

In the previous section, we emphasized that compensatory decision rules that involve
tradeoffs require a great deal of cognitive effort. But there are other reasons why people
avoid making explicit tradeoffs on choice attributes. For one, some tradeoffs are more
emotionally difficult than others, for example the decision whether to stay at home with
one’s children or put them in day care. Some choices also involve attributes that are
considered sacred or protected (Baron & Spranca 1997). People prefer not to make these
emotionally difficult tradeoffs, and that shapes decision strategy selection (Hogarth 1991;
Baron 1986; Baron & Spranca 1997). Experiments on these types of emotional decisions
have shown that, when facing emotionally difficult decisions, decision-makers avoid
compensatory evaluation and instead select the alternative that is most attractive on whatever
Author Manuscript

dimension is difficult to trade off (Luce et al. 2001; Luce et al. 1999). Thus, the emotional
valence of specific options shapes decision strategies.

7There is a rich literature in sociology on how emotions are inputs to and outcomes of social processes (e.g., Hochschild 1975; Scheff
1988). While this work has not historically been integrated with psychology (Turner and Stets 2014, p. 2), this may be a fruitful
direction for future research.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 9

Emotions concerning the set of all choice alternatives—specifically, whether they are
Author Manuscript

perceived as overall favorable or unfavorable—also affects strategy selection. Early work

with rats suggests that decisions are relatively easy when choosing between two desirable
options with no downsides (Miller 1959). However, when deciding between options with
both desirable and undesirable attributes, the choice becomes harder. When deciding
between two undesirable options, the choice is hardest of all. Subsequent work reveals that
this finding extends to human choice. For instance, people invoke different choice strategies
when forced to choose “the lesser of two evils.” In their experiments on housing choice,
Luce and colleagues (2000) found that when faced with a set of substandard options, people
are far more likely to engage in “maximizing” behavior and select the alternative with the
best value on whatever is perceived as the dominant substandard feature. In other words,
having a suboptimal choice set reduces the likelihood of tradeoffs on multiple attributes.
Extending this idea to a different sociological context, a woman confronted with a dating
Author Manuscript

pool filled with what she perceives as arrogant men may focus her attention on selecting the
least arrogant of the group.

Emotions as Information
Emotions also serve as direct inputs into the decision process. A large body of work on
perceptions of risk shows that a key way people evaluate the risks and benefits of a given
situation is through their emotional response (Slovic et al. 2004; Slovic and Peters 2006;
Loewenstein et al. 2001). In a foundational and generative study, Fischhoff et al. (1978)
discovered that people’s perceptions of risks decline as perceived benefits increase. This is
puzzling, because risks and benefits tend to be positively correlated. The authors also noted
that the attribute most highly correlated with perceived risk was the extent to which the item
in question evoked a feeling of dread. This finding has been confirmed in many other studies
Author Manuscript

(e.g., McDaniels et al. 1997). Subsequent work also showed that this inverse relationship is
linked to the strength of positive or negative affect associated with the stimulus. In other
words, stronger negative responses led to perception of greater risk and lower benefits
(Alhakami & Slovic 1994; Slovic & Peters 2006).

This has led to a large body of work on the affect heuristic, which is grounded in the idea
that people have positive and negative associations with different stimuli, and they consult
this “affect pool” when making judgments. This shortcut is often more efficient and easier
than cognitive strategies such as weighing pros and cons or even disjunctive rules for
evaluating the relative merits of each choice outcome (Slovic et al. 2004). Affect—
particularly how it relates to decision-making—is rooted in dual process accounts of human
behavior. The basic idea is that people experience the world in two different ways: one that
is fast, intuitive, automatic, and unconscious, and another that is slow, analytical, deliberate,
Author Manuscript

and verbal (Evans 2008; Kahneman 2011). A defining characteristic of the intuitive,
automatic system is its affective basis (Epstein 1994). Indeed, affective reactions to stimuli
are often the very first reactions people have. Having determined what is salient in a given
situation, affect thus guides subsequent processes, such as information processing, that are
central to cognition (Zajonc 1980).

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 10

Over the past two decades, sociologists—particularly in the study of culture—have

Author Manuscript

incorporated insights from dual process theory to understand how actions may be both
deliberate and automatic (e.g., Vaisey 2009). Small and Sukhu (2016) argue that dual
processes may play an important role in the mobilization of support networks. Kroneberg
and Esser (Kroneberg 2014; Esser and Kroneberg 2015) explore how automatic and
deliberative processes shape how people select the “frame” for making sense of a particular
situation. Although some scholars debate whether automatic and deliberative processes are
more like polar extremes or a smooth spectrum (for an example of this critique within
sociology, see Leschziner and Green 2013), the dual process model remains a useful
framework for theorizing about behavior.

THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN DECISION PROCESSES

Sociologists have long been interested in how social environments—for example, living in a
Author Manuscript

poor neighborhood, attending an affluent school, or growing up in a single-parent household

—shape life outcomes such as high school graduation, non-marital fertility, and career
aspirations (Sharkey and Faber 2014; Lee et al. 1993; Astone and McLanahan 1991). Social
environments shape behavior directly through various forms of influence such as peer
pressure and social learning, and indirectly by dictating what opportunities or social
positions are available (Blalock 1984; Manski 2000; Schelling 1971). But while the
sociological literature on contextual effects is vast, the subset of that work which focuses on
decisions emphasizes the causes or consequences of those decisions more than the processes
through which they are made.

Decision researchers devote considerable attention to contextual effects, but typically

“context” in this field refers to architectural features of choice environments such as the
Author Manuscript

number of alternatives; whether time pressures limit the effort that can be put into a
decision; and what option is emphasized as the default. (In the world, of course, these
features are socially determined. But this is less emphasized in decision research, much of
which occurs in a laboratory setting.) The overwhelming finding from these studies is that
people’s choices are highly sensitive to context. This insight has led to an influential
literature on the “Construction of Preferences” (see Sidebar) as well as a great deal of
interest in policy interventions that manipulate features of choice environments (Thaler and
Sunstein 2008; Shafir 2013). Recently, decision researchers have begun to look at how
decisions are shaped by more explicitly social environments such as poverty (e.g.,
Mullainathan and Shafir 2013). In this section, we discuss how four aspects of social context
—what opportunities are available, the importance of the “default” option, time pressure and
constrained resources, and the choices of others—shape decision processes.
Author Manuscript

Choice Sets and Defaults

A classic assumption of conventional choice models is that the ratio of choice probabilities
for any two options is independent of what other options are available (Luce 1959). (In the
literature on statistical models of choice, this is known as the principle of Independence of
Irrelevant Alternatives [IIA].) But it is well established that people’s choices depend heavily
on the relative merits of a particular set of options rather than their absolute values (Tversky

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 11

& Simonson 1993). For example, people tend to avoid more extreme values in alternatives
Author Manuscript

(the “compromise effect”); thus, adding a new option to the mix can lead choosers to shift
their views about what constitutes a reasonable choice (Simonson 1989; Simonson &
Tversky 1992). In a similar vein, a robust finding is that adding a new “asymmetrically
dominated” alternative – one dominated by some items in the set but not by others – can
actually increase the choice probabilities of the items that dominate it. Such a “decoy effect”
(Huber et al. 1982) should be impossible under IIA, and in fact violates regularity (i.e., new
items cannot increase probabilities of existing ones). Both of these effects have been
attributed to the fact that people making choices are trying to justify them based on reasons
(Simonson 1989; Dhar et al. 2000); changing the distribution of options may alter how
compelling a particular reason might be.

Choice outcomes are also highly influenced by what option is identified as the “default.”
Defaults are whatever happens in a decision if the chooser “decides not to decide” (Feinberg
Author Manuscript

& Huber 1996). Defaults exert a strong effect on people’s choices, even when the stakes of
the decision are high (Johnson et al. 1993; Johnson & Goldstein 2013). Defaults also tap into
other, well-established features of human decision making: procrastination, bias for the
status quo, and inertial behavior (Samuelson & Zeckhauser 1988; Kahneman et al. 1991). In
recent years, manipulating the default option—for example making retirement savings or
organ donation something people opt out of rather than opt into—has been identified as a
potentially low cost, highly impact policy intervention (Shafir 2013). Defaults are also of
potentially great sociological interest. A number of sociological studies have theorized about
how people “drift” into particular outcomes or situations (e.g., Matza 1967); defaults exist in
part because choices are embedded in specific environments that emphasize one set of
options over others.8
Author Manuscript

Scarcity and Social Influence

A number of recent studies examine how conditions of scarcity—with regard to time,
resources, and energy—shape decision-making. Consistent with studies of cognitive effort
and decision-making, a variety of experimental results demonstrate that time pressure
reduces people’s tendency to make tradeoffs (Wright & Weitz 1977; Edland 1989; Rieskamp
& Hoffrage 2008). This finding is especially interesting in light of recent line of work by
Shah et al. (2015), who show via experiments that resource scarcity forces people to make
tradeoffs, e.g., “If I buy dessert, I can’t afford to take the bus home.” Weighing tradeoffs is
cognitively costly; they deplete people’s resources for other decision tasks, which overall
reduces their ability to engage in deliberative decision-making (Pocheptsova et al. 2009).
Given the fact that people living in conditions of extreme scarcity are typically limited in
both time and financial resources, a cognitive perspective suggests that they are “doubly
Author Manuscript

taxed” in terms of cognitive effort, and offers important insights in understanding how
conditions of poverty shape, and are shaped by, people’s choices (Bertrand et al. 2004). In
short, the context of poverty depletes people’s cognitive resources in an environment where
mistakes are costly (Mullainathan & Shafir 2013, Gennetian & Shafir 2015).

8We are grateful for conversations with Rob Sampson and Mario Small that led to this insight.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 12

There are also a small number of studies that examine how the actions of other people
Author Manuscript

influence decision processes. They focus on the role of descriptive norms (Cialdini 2003;
Cialdini & Goldstein 2004), which are information about what other people are doing. The
key finding is that people are more likely to adopt a particular behavior—such as conserving
energy in one’s home or avoiding changing sheets and towels at a hotel—if they learn that
others are doing the same (Goldstein et al. 2008; Nolan et al. 2008). The more similar the
comparison situation is to one’s own, the more powerful the effect of others’ behavior on
one’s own. For instance, people are more likely to be influenced if the descriptive norm
references their neighbors or others who share social spaces (Schultz et al. 2007). The
finding that descriptive norms are most powerful when they are immediate is reinforced by a
study of charitable giving, which shows that people’s behavior is disproportionately
influenced by information about what others have given, especially the most recent, non-
specified donor (Shang & Croson 2009).
Author Manuscript

This work on social influence is consistent with a classic literature in sociology that
emphasizes how people’s beliefs about the sort of situation they are in shape their behavior
(e.g., Thomas & Znaniecki 1918; Goffman 1974). Social cues provide information about
what choices are consistent with desired or appropriate behavior. For example, a classic
study demonstrates that whether a Prisoner’s dilemma game was presented to research
subjects as a simulated “Wall Street” or “Community” shaped subsequent playing decisions
(Liberman et al. 2004; Camerer & Thaler 1993). In other words, there is an interpretive
component to decision-making that informs one’s views about the kind of response that is
appropriate.

STUDYING DECISION PROCESSES

Author Manuscript

Psychologists have devised a number of techniques to shed light on human decision

processes in conjunction with targeted stimuli. Process tracing is a venerated suite of
methods broadly aimed at extracting how people go about acquiring, integrating, and
evaluating information, as well as physiological, neurological, and concomitants of cognitive
processes (Svenson 1979; Schulte-Mecklenbeck et al. 2010). (Note that this approach is
quite different from what political scientists and sociologists typically refer to as process
tracing [Mahoney 2012; Collier 2011].) In a classic study, Lohse & Johnson (1996) examine
individual-level information acquisition using both computerized tracing and eye-tracking
across multiple process measures (e.g., total time, number of fixations, accuracy, etc.)

More recently, the use of unobtrusive eye-trackers has allowed researchers to discern which
information is being sought and assimilated in the sort of stimuli-rich environments that
typify online interactions, without querying respondents’ knowledge or intermediate goals
Author Manuscript

(Duchowski 2007, Wedel & Pieters 2008). Also, it has recently become possible to use
neuroimaging techniques like PET, EEG, and fMRI (Yoon et al. 2006) to observe decision
processes in vivo, although at a high cost of invasiveness. Such studies offer the benefit of
sidestepping questions about, for example, the emotional reactions experienced by decision-
makers, by observing which portions of the brain are active when information is being
accessed and processed, as well as final decisions arrived at.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 13

Stated and Revealed Preferences

Author Manuscript

While not directly focused on the process of decision-making (i.e., in terms of identifying
decision strategies), a large literature assumes a linear compensatory model and aims to
capture the weights people ascribe to different choice attributes (see Louviere et al. 1999 for
a broad overview; also Train 2009). These methods, long known to social scientists
(Samuelson 1948; Manski and McFadden 1981; Bruch and Mare 2012), rely on both field
data—where the analyst records decision-makers’ “revealed preferences” as reflected in
their actions—and choice experiments, where analysts enact control over key elements of
the decision environment through vignettes. Stated choice experiments have two advantages
that are relevant in modeling choice processes: their ability to (1) present decision-makers
with options unavailable in practice or outside their usual purview; and (2) record multiple
(hypothetical) choices for each decision-maker, even for scenarios like mate choice or home
purchase that are made few times in a lifespan. The downside is that they are difficult to
Author Manuscript

fully contextualize or make incentive-compatible; for example, experiment participants are

routinely more willing to spend simulated experimental money than their own hard-won
cash (Carlsson & Martinsson 2001).

Among the main statistical methods for enacting choice experiments is conjoint analysis
(Green and Srinivasan 1978, Green et al. 2001), a broad suite of techniques, implemented
widely in dedicated software (e.g., Sawtooth), to measure stated preferences and how they
vary across a target population. Conjoint works by decomposing options into their attributes,
each of which can have several levels. For example, housing options each provide cooking
facilities, sleeping quarters, bathrooms, among other attributes, and each of these varies in
terms of their quality levels (e.g., larger vs. smaller; number overall; and categorical
attributes like type of heating, color, location, etc.) The goal of conjoint is to assign a utility
or part-worth to each level of each attribute, with higher numbers representing more
Author Manuscript

preferred attribute levels; for example, one might say that, for families with several children,
a home with four bedrooms has a much higher utility than one with two. Conjoint
approaches can be—and have been (Wittink & Cattin 1989; Wittink et al. 1994)—applied to
a wide range of settings where it is useful to measure the importance of specific choice
attributes.

Field data such as residential, work, or relationship histories have the advantage of reflecting
actual choices made in real contexts (Louviere et al. 1999). However, such data suffer from
several drawbacks: (1) variables necessarily covary (i.e., higher neighborhood prices
correlate with levels of many attributes at once); (2) we cannot infer how people would
respond to possible novel options, like affordable, diverse neighborhoods that may not yet
exist; and (3) each person typically makes just one choice. Such problems are exacerbated
Author Manuscript

when researchers cannot in principle know the entire “consideration set” of options available
and actively mulled over by each decision-maker, which is typically the case in sociological
applications.9 When such confounds are present in field data, conjoint and other

9Newer online data sources—for example, websites for housing search and dating—generate highly granular, intermediate data on
consideration sets. This parallels a revolution that occurred among choice modelers in marketing 30 years ago: the introduction of in-
store product code scanners and household panels whose longitudinal histories provided information not only on which options were
eventually chosen, but also which were actually available at the time of purchase, but rejected.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 14

experimental methods allow researchers to control and “orthogonalize” the attributes and
Author Manuscript

levels used in choice experiments, to achieve maximal efficiency and avoid presenting each
participant with more than a couple of dozen hypothetical choice scenarios (Chrzan & Orme
2000).10

Two other choice assessment methods deserve brief mention, as they leverage some of the
best features of experimental and field research: natural experiments and field experiments.
In a natural experiment, an event exogenous to the outcome of interest affects only certain
individuals, or affects different individuals to varying degrees. One example is the effect of
natural disasters, like the 2005 flooding of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, on migration decisions (Kirk 2009). In field experiments, researchers exert control
over focal aspects of people’s choice environments. Although it may seem difficult to study
sociologically relevant choice processes this way, the use of web sites as search tools enables
a nontrivial degree of experimental control over choice environments (see, for example,
Author Manuscript

Bapna et al. 2016).

Statistical Models of Choice Processes

The bedrock formulation of statistical analyses of choice is the random utility model, which
posits that each option available to a decision-maker affords a certain value (“utility”), which
can be decomposed into that explicable by the analyst and a (“random”) error (Ben-Akiva &
Lerman 1985; Train 2009).11 The former can be related through regression-based techniques
to other observed covariates on the options, decision-maker, and environment, whereas the
latter can be due to systematically unavailable information (e.g., income or education) or
intrinsic unobservables (e.g., the mood of the decision-maker). Of particular importance is
McFadden’s conditional logit model (McFadden 1973),12 which allows attributes of options
to vary across choice occasions (e.g., prices or waiting times for different transportation
Author Manuscript

modes; neighborhoods or room sizes for renting vs. buying a home; etc.) Because this model
is supported in much commercial statistical software, and converges rapidly even for large
data sets, it is by far the most widely deployed in choice applications.

Statistical models of choice have been grounded primarily in rational utility theory, with
concessions towards efficient estimation. As such, the utility specifications underlying such
models have tended to be linear, to include all available options, and incorporate full
information on those options. Much research reveals not only the psychological process
accuracy, but the statistical superiority, of relaxing these assumptions by incorporating limits
on information, cognitive penalties, and nonlinear/noncompensatory utility. For example, the
formal incorporation of consideration sets into choice modeling (Horowitz, & Louviere
1995; Louviere, Hensher, & Swait 2000, section 10.3) has demonstrated superior fit and
Author Manuscript

predictive accuracy for explicit models of exclusion of certain options from detailed

10A review of the vast choice experiment design literature is beyond the scope of this article, but turnkey solutions for designing,
deploying, and estimating discrete choice models for online panels are commercially available (e.g., Sawtooth Software’s “Discover”).
11There is an enormous literature on the analysis of discrete choice data—items chosen from a known array with recorded attributes.
Our treatment here is necessarily brief and highly selective. For more comprehensive introductions to this topic, we refer the reader to
the many treatments available (e.g., Ben-Akiva & Lerman 1985, Hensher et al. 2005, Louviere et al. 2000, Train 2009).
12Empirical work typically refers to this as the multinomial logit model, although economists often distinguish the latter as applicable
to when attributes change for the decision-maker (e.g., age, income), not the options themselves.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 15

processing, with some analyses (see Hauser & Wernerfelt 1990) attributing in excess of 75%
Author Manuscript

of the choice model’s fit to such restrictions. Similarly, lab studies have confirmed that
decision-makers wish to conserve cognitive resources, and formal statistical models (e.g.,
Shugan 1980, Roberts & Lattin 1991) have attempted to account for and measure a “cost of
thinking” or consideration from real-world data.

However, despite a decades-deep literature on noncompensatory evaluation processes

(Einhorn 1970), the practical estimation of such models is largely in its infancy, due to
complexities of specification and data needs (e.g., Elrod et al. 2004). Although nonlinearity
can be captured using polynomial functions of covariates, these impose smoothness of
response; by contrast, conjunctive and disjunctive processes impose cutoffs beyond which
evaluation is either wholly positive or insurmountably negative (Bruch et al., 2016). We view
the development of this area as critical to the widespread acceptance of formal choice
models to social scientists and sociologists in particular, who typically wish to know which
Author Manuscript

neighborhoods we would never live in, jobs we would never take, etc.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Sociology has long been interested in individuals’ choices and their implications for social
life, and there is renewed interest in theories that can explain human action (e.g., Kroneberg
2014; Gross 2009). Our hope is that this review enables interested scholars to pursue a more
nuanced and structurally accurate representation of the choice process. Greater insight into
human behavior will also allow for greater insights into the dynamic relationship between
micro- and meso-level processes and their larger-scale implications (Hedstrom and Bearman
2009). Consider how choice sets are constructed in the first place. People may rule out
certain options due to preferences, affordability and/or time constraints—classic cognitive,
Author Manuscript

temporal, and economic variables—but also the anticipation of unfair treatment or

discrimination. For example, a high school student searching for colleges may eliminate
those that are too expensive, too far from home, or are perceived as unwelcoming.
Identifying the criteria through which people rule themselves (or others) out can illuminate
more precise mechanisms through which people’s actions shape, and are shaped by, larger-
scale inequality structures.

We also believe that many of the data limitations that hampered sociologists’ ability to study
decision processes in the past are becoming far less of an issue. This is due at least in part to
increasingly available data sources that can aid sociologists in studying choice processes.
These so-called “big data” are often behavioral data: specific actions taken by individuals
that can shed light on processes of information search, assimilation, and choice. Moreover,
the online environments through which we increasingly communicate and interact enable
Author Manuscript

not only observational “field” data, but also targeted, unobtrusive experiments where the
decision environment is directly altered. The latter possibility offers greater precision than
ever before in isolating both idiosyncratic and potentially universal features of behavior, as
well as better understanding the interplay between context and human action.

However, existing approaches from marketing and psychology are often not suited to
sociological inquiry directly out of the box, creating both challenges and opportunities for

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 16

future work. For example, most extant models were designed to capture more prosaic
Author Manuscript

decisions, like supermarket shopping, where attributes are known, options are stable, and
“stakes” are modest. Although some choices of sociological interest may fit this pattern,
most do not. For example, many pivotal life decisions—purchasing a home (where sellers
and buyers must agree on terms); college admissions; dating and marriage decisions;
employment offers—require a partnership, wherein each decision maker must “choose you
back.” Sociologists must therefore be circumspect in applying models developed for choice
among “inert” options (such as flavors of yogurt) to the data they most commonly analyze.

The fact that so many sociological choices are characterized by obscurity (i.e., there is no
obvious or single optimal choice to be made) is also a good reason to proceed with caution
in applying ideas from JDM to sociological research. Take, for example, the literature
discussed earlier on interventions that manipulate people’s default option. It is one thing to
encourage healthier eating by putting apples before chocolate cake in the cafeteria line; it is
Author Manuscript

quite another to nudge someone towards a particular neighborhood or school. Sociologists

rarely have a clear sense of what choice will be optimal for a group of people, let alone
particular individuals. On the other hand, few would argue that growing up surrounded by
violence isn’t universally harmful (Harding 2009; Sharkey et al. 2013). Policies can only be
improved by a more nuanced understanding of how choices unfold in particular
environments, and how the default options are shaped by contextual factors.

Thus, this challenge also creates the opportunity to build knowledge on how heuristics
operate under conditions of obscurity. JDM research has largely focused on documenting
whether and how heuristics fall short of some correct or optimal answer. In sociology, by
contrast, we typically lack a defensible metric for the “suboptimality” of decisions. While
some decisions may be worse than others, it is impossible to know, for example, whether
Author Manuscript

one has chosen the “right” spouse or peer group, or how to set up appropriate counterfactual
scenarios as yardsticks against which specific decisions could be dispassionately assessed.
By branching into decision domains where the quality or optimality of outcomes cannot be
easily quantified (or in some cases even coherently conceptualized), sociologists can not
only actively extend the range of applications of decision research, but also break new
theoretical ground.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Scott Rick Mario Small, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful feedback on this manuscript.
This work was supported by a training grant (K01-HD-079554) from the National Institute of Child and Human
Developent
Author Manuscript

LITERATURE CITED
Alba J, Marmorstein H. The effects of frequency knowledge on consumer decision making. Journal of
Consumer Research. 1987; 14:14–25.
Alhakami A, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and
perceived benefit. Risk analysis. 1994; 14:1085–1096. [PubMed: 7846317]
Aribarg A, Arora N, Bodur H. Understanding the role of preference revision and concession in group
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research. 2002; 39:336–349.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 17

Astone N, McLanahan S. Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American
Sociological Review. 1991; 56:309–320.
Author Manuscript

Baker W. The social structure of a national securities market. American Journal of Sociology. 1984;
89:775–811.
Barberis N. Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: A review and assessment. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives. 2013; 27:173–95.
Baron J, Spranca M. Protected values. Organizational behavior and human decision processes. 1997;
70:1–16.
Baron J. Tradeoffs among reasons for action. Journal for the theory of social behavior. 1986; 16:173–
195.
Beckert J. What is sociological about economic sociology? Uncertainty and the embeddedness of
economic action. Theory and Society. 1996; 25:803–840.
Ben-Akiva, M., Lerman, S. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.
Cambridge: MIT Press; 1985.
Bertrand M, Mullainathan S, Shafir E. A behavioral-economics view of poverty. The American
Economic Review. 2004; 94:419–423.
Author Manuscript

Bettman J, Luce M, Payne J. Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research.
1998; 25:187–217.
Bettman J, Park C. Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on
consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research. 1980; 7:234–
248.
Blalock H. Contextual-effects models: theoretical and methodological issues. Annual Review of
Sociology. 1984; 10:353–372.
Boudon R. Beyond rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology. 2003; 29:1–21.
Braunstein M. Perception of rotation in depth: A process model. Psychological Review. 1972; 79:510–
524. [PubMed: 4634594]
Brownstone D, Bunch D, Train K. Joint mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences for
alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2000; 34:315–338.
Bruch E, Feinberg F, Lee K. Extracting Multistage Screening Rules from Online Dating Activity Data.
Published online before print at Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016; doi:
Author Manuscript

10.1073/pnas.1522494113
Camerer C, Weber M. Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992; 5:325–370.
Camerer C, Thaler R. Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives. 1995; 9:209–219.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. In: Camerer,
C.Loewenstein, G., Rabin, M., editors. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press; 2004. p. 3-51.
Camerer, C. Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. In: Camerer, C.Loewenstein, G.,
Rabin, M., editors. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press;
2004. p. 148-61.
Carrillo L, Pattillo M, Hardy E, Acevedo-Garcia D. Housing Decisions Among Low-Income Hispanic
Households in Chicago. Cityscape. 2016; 18:109–137.
Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice
Author Manuscript

experiments? Application to the valuation of the environment. Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management. 2001; 41:179–192.
Cerulo, K. Culture in mind: Toward a sociology of culture and cognition. New York: Routledge; 2002.
Chrzan K, Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint
analysis. Sawtooth software research paper series. 2000
Cialdini R. Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in
Psychological Science. 2003; 12:105–109.
Cialdini R, Goldstein N. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology.
2004; 55:591–621.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 18

Coleman, J. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1994.

Coleman J. Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American journal of Sociology.
Author Manuscript

91:1309–1335.
Collier D. Understanding process tracing. Political Science & Politics. 2011; 44:823–830.
Cowan N. The magical mystery four how is working memory capacity limited, and why? Current
directions in psychological science. 2010; 19:51–57. [PubMed: 20445769]
Cox J, Grether D. The preference reversal phenomenon: Response mode, markets and incentives.
Economic Theory. 1996; 7:381–405.
Dawes P, Brown J. Determinants of awareness, consideration, and choice set size in university choice.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2002; 12:49–75.
Dawes P, Brown J. The composition of consideration and choice sets in undergraduate university
choice: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 14:37–59.
Dhar R, Nowlis S, Sherman S. Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice.
Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2000; 9:189–200.
Denes-Raj V, Epstein S. Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave
against their better judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1994; 66:819.
Author Manuscript

[PubMed: 8014830]
Dimaggio P. Culture and Cognition. Annual Review of Sociology. 1997; 23:263–287.
Duchowski, A. Eye tracking methodology: Theory and Practice. Springer Science & Business Media;
2007.
Edland, A. On cognitive processes under time stress: A selective review of the literature on time stress
and related stress. Department [Psykologiska inst., Stockholms univ.]; 1989.
Einhorn H. The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision-making. Psychological bulletin.
1970; 73:221. [PubMed: 5484257]
Einhorn, H., Hogarth, R. Decision making under ambiguity: A note. In: Munier, B., editor. Risk,
Decision and Rationality. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel; 1988. p. 327-336.
Ellsberg D. Risk Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1961; 75:643–
669.
Elrod T, Johnson R, White J. A new integrated model of noncompensatory and compensatory decision
strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2004; 95:1–19.
Author Manuscript

Emirbayer M. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology. 1997; 103:281–
317.
England P. A feminist critique of rational-choice theories: Implications for sociology. The American
Sociologist. 1989; 20:14–28.
Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist.
1994; 49:709. [PubMed: 8092614]
Esser, H., Kroneberg, C. An Integrative Theory of Action: The Model of Frame Selection. In: Lawler,
E.Thye, S., Yoon, J., editors. Order at the Edge of Chaos: Social Psychology and the Problem of
Social Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 63-85.
Evans J. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of
Psychology. 2008; 59:255–78.
Feinberg F, Huber J. A theory of cutoff formation under imperfect information. Management Science.
1996; 42:65–84.
Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric
Author Manuscript

study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences. 1978; 9:127–152.
Gely R, Spiller P. A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications
to the State Farm and Grove City Cases. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 1990;
6:263–300.
Gennetian L, Eldar S. The Persistence of Poverty in the Context of Financial Instability: A Behavioral
Perspective. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2015; 34:904–936.
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology. 2011;
62:451–82.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 19

Gigerenzer G, Brighton H. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in
Cognitive Science. 2009; 1:107–143. [PubMed: 25164802]
Author Manuscript

Gigerenzer, G., Goldstein, D. Betting on one good reason: The take the best heuristic. In: Gigerenzer,
G., Todd, P., editors. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
1999. p. 75-95.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press; USA: 1999.
Gigerenzer G. Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. Blackwell handbook of
judgment and decision making. 2004:62–88.
Gigerenzer G. Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008; 3:20–29. [PubMed:
26158666]
Gilbride T, Allenby G. A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening
rules. Marketing Science. 2004; 23:391–406.
Goffman, E. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press; 1974.
Goldstein D, Johnson E, Herrmann A, Heitmann M. Nudge your Customers towards Better Choices.
Harvard Business Review. 2008:100–105. [PubMed: 18822674]
Author Manuscript

Goldstein N, Cialdini R, Griskevicius V. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate
environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research. 2008; 35:472–82.
Goldthorpe J. The quantitative analysis of large-scale data-sets and rational action theory: for a
sociological alliance. European Sociological Review. 1996; 12:109–26.
Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American
Journal of Sociology. 1985; 91:481–510.
Green P, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of
consumer research. 1978; 5:103–123.
Green P, Krieger A, Wind Y. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces.
2001; 31:S56–S73.
Grether D, Plott C. Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. American
Economic Review. 1979; 69:623–638.
Gross N. A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review. 2009; 74:358–79.
Guadagni P, Little J. A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science.
Author Manuscript

1983; 2:203–238.
Hauser J, Wernerfelt B. An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer
Research. 1990; 16:393–408.
Hechter M, Kanazawa S. Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology. 1997;
23:191–214.
Hedström P, Swedberg R. Rational Choice, Empirical Research, and the Sociological tradition.
European Sociological Review. 1996; 12:127–146.
Hedstrom, P. Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 2005.
Hedström, P., Bearman, P. The Oxford handbook of analytical sociology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 2009.
Henrich J, Heine S, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
2010; 33:61–83. [PubMed: 20550733]
Hensher, D., Rose, J., Greene, W. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge
Author Manuscript

University Press; 2005.

Higgins, E. Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In: Higgins, E.,
Kruglanski, A., editors. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford
Press; 1996. p. 133-68.
Hogarth, R. Judgment and choice: The psychology of decision. Chichester: Wiley; 1991.
Hochschild, A. The Second Shift: Working Families and the Revolution at Home. New York: Penguin
Books;
Horowitz J, Louviere J. What is the role of consideration sets in choice modeling? International
Journal of Research in Marketing. 1995; 12:39–54.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 20

Howard, J., Jagdish, N. The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley; 1969.
Huber J, Payne J, Puto C. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and
Author Manuscript

the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research. 1982; 9:90–98.

Johnson E, Goldstein D. Do defaults save lives? Science. 2003; 302:1338–1339. [PubMed: 14631022]
Johnson, E., Goldstein, D. Decisions by Default. In: Shafir, E., editor. The Behavioral Foundations of
Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013. p. 417-427.
Johnson E, Payne J. Effort and accuracy in choice. Management science. 1985; 31(4):395–414.
Johnson, E., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., Kunreuther, H. Making Decisions About Liability And
Insurance. Springer; Netherlands: 1993. Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions;
p. 35-51.
Jones D. A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists’ studies. Science. 2010; 328:1627–
1627. [PubMed: 20576866]
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica.
1979:263–291.
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Variants of uncertainty. Cognition. 1982; 11:143–57. [PubMed: 7198958]
Author Manuscript

Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist. 1984; 39:341–350.
Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American
economic review. 2003; 93:1449–75.
Kahneman, D. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan; 2011.
Kahneman D, Knetsch J, Thaler R. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo
bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1991; 5:193–206.
Kroneberg, C. Frames, Scripts, and Variable rationality: An integrative Theory of Action. In: Manzo,
G., editor. Analytical Sociology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons; 2014. p. 95-123.
Kroneberg C, Kalter F. Rational choice theory and empirical research: Methodological and theoretical
contributions in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology. 2012; 38:73–92.
Krysan M, Bader M. Racial blind spots: Black-white-Latino differences in community knowledge.
Social Problems. 2009; 56:677–701.
Lee V, Bryk A, Smith J. The organization of effective secondary schools. Review of Research in
Education. 1993; 19:171–267.
Author Manuscript

Leschziner V, Green A. Thinking about Food and Sex: Deliberate Cognition in the Routine Practices of
a Field. Sociological Theory. 2013; 31:116–144.
Lerner J, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam K. Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology.
2015; 66:799–823.
Levy J. Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. International Studies Quarterly.
1997; 41:87–112.
Liberman V, Samuels S, Ross L. The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus
situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and social
psychology bulletin. 2004; 30:1175–1185. [PubMed: 15359020]
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P. The construction of preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
2006.
Lindenberg S, Frey B. Alternatives, frames, and relative prices: A broader view of rational choice
theory. Acta Sociologica. 1993; 36:191–205.
Liu L, Dukes A. Consideration set formation with multiproduct firms: The case of within-firm and
across-firm evaluation costs. Management Science. 2013; 59:1871–1886.
Author Manuscript

Lizardo O. Beyond the Comtean Schema: The Sociology of Culture and Cognition Versus Cognitive
Social Science. Sociological Forum. 2014; 29:983–989.
Loewenstein G, Lerner J. The role of affect in decision making. Handbook of affective science. 2003;
619:3.
Loewenstein G. The creative destruction of decision research. Journal of Consumer Research. 2001;
28:499–505.
Loewenstein G, Weber E, Hsee C, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin. 2001; 127:267.
[PubMed: 11316014]

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 21

Lohse G, Johnson E. A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1996; 68(1):28–43.
Author Manuscript

Louviere, J., Hensher, D., Swait, J. Stated choice methods: analysis and applications. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press; 2000.
Louviere J, Meyer R, Bunch D, Carson R, Dellaert B, Hanemann W, Hensher D, Irwin J. Combining
sources of preference data for modeling complex decision processes. Marketing Letters. 1999;
10:205–217.
Luce, R. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley; 1959.
Luce M, Bettman J, Payne J. Emotional decisions: Tradeoff difficulty and coping in consumer choice.
Monographs of the Journal of Consumer Research. 2001; 1:1–209.
Luce M, Payne J, Bettman J. Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice. Journal of Marketing Research.
1999:143–159.
Luce M, Payne J, Bettman J. Coping with unfavorable attribute values in choice. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes. 81:274–99.
Mahoney J. The logic of process tracing tests in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research.
2012; 41:570–597.
Author Manuscript

Mandel N, Johnson E. When web pages influence choice: Effects of visual primes on experts and
novices. Journal of consumer research. 2002; 29:235–245.
Manski C. Economic Analysis of Social Interactions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14:115–
136.
Manzo G. Is rational choice theory still a rational choice of theory? A response to Opp. Social Science
Information. 2013; 52:361–382.
Margolis, H. Selfishness and Altruism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982.
Matza, D. Delinquency and Drift. Transaction Publishers; 1967.
McDaniels T, Axelrod L, Cavanagh N, Slovic P. Perception of ecological risk to water environments.
Risk analysis. 1997; 17:341–352. [PubMed: 9232017]
McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In: Zarembka, P., editor.
Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press; 1973. p. 105-142.
McFadden D. Rationality for economists? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1999; 19:73–105.
McFadden D. Economic Choices. The American Economic Review. 2001; 91:351–378.
Author Manuscript

Miller G. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological review. 1956; 63:81. [PubMed: 13310704]
Miller, N. Liberalization of Basic SR Concepts: Extensions to Conflict Behavior, Motivation, and
Social Learning. McGraw-Hill Company; 1959.
Munch, R. Rational Choice Theory: A Critical Assessment of Its Explanatory Power. In: Coleman, J.,
Fararo, T., editors. Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique. London: Sage Publications;
1992. p. 137-161.
Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E. Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York: Times Books;
2013.
Newell, A., Simon, H. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1972.
Nolan J, Schultz P, Cialdini R, Goldstein N, Griskevicius V. Normative social influence is
underdetected. Personality and social psychology bulletin. 2008; 34:913–923. [PubMed:
18550863]
Pachucki M, Jacques P, Christakis N. Social network concordance in food choice among spouses,
Author Manuscript

friends, and siblings. American Journal of Public Health. 2011; 101:2170–2177. [PubMed:
21940920]
Payne, J., Bettman, J. Walking with the scarecrow: The information-processing approach to decision
research. In: Koehler, D., Harvey, N., editors. Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision
making. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 2004. p. 110-132.
Payne J. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and
protocol analysis. Organizational behavior and human performance. 1976; 16:366–387.
Payne, J., Bettman, J., Johnson, E. The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press; 1993.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 22

Perna L, Titus M. The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college
enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education.
Author Manuscript

2005; 76:485–518.
Pescosolido B. Beyond rational choice: The social dynamics of how people seek help. American
Journal of Sociology. 1992; 97:1096–1138.
Pocheptsova A, Amir O, Dhar R, Baumeister R. Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and
choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research. 2009; 46:344–55.
Rieskamp J, Hoffrage U. Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy
selection. Acta psychological. 2008; 127:258–76.
Rieskamp J, Otto P. SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General. 2006; 135:207. [PubMed: 16719651]
Roberts J, Lattin J. Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of
Marketing Research. 1991:429–440.
Roberts J, Lattin J. Consideration: Review of research and prospects for future insights. Journal of
Marketing Research. 1997:406–410.
Rosenquist N, Murabito J, Fowler J, Christakis N. The spread of alcohol consumption behavior in a
Author Manuscript

large social network. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010; 152:426–433. [PubMed: 20368648]
Nisbett, R., Ross, L. The person and the situation. New York: McGraw Hill; 1991.
Rossi, P., Allenby, G., McCulloch, R. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Wiley, Chichester; 2005.
Salisbury L, Feinberg F. All things considered? The role of choice set formation in diversification.
Journal of Marketing Research. 2012; 49(3):320–335.
Sampson R, Morenoff J, Gannon-Rowley T. Assessing Neighborhood Effects: Social Processes and
New Directions in Research. Annual Review of Sociology. 2002; 28:443–478.
Samuelson P. Some Implications of Linearity. The Review of Economic Studies. 1947; 15:88–90.
Samuelson P. Consumption theory in terms of revealed preference. Economica. 1948; 15:243–253.
Samuelson W, Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of risk and uncertainty.
1988; 1:7–59.
Satz D, Ferejohn J. Rational choice and social theory. The Journal of Philosophy. 1994; 91:71–87.
Scheff T. Shame and conformity: The deference-emotion system. American Sociological Review.
1988; 53:395–406.
Author Manuscript

Schelling T. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology. 1971; 1:143–186.

Schneider S. Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of
risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1992;
18:1040.
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kuehberger, A., Ranyard, R. A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for
Decision Research: A Critical Review and User’s Guide (The Society for Judgment and Decision
Making Series). Psychology Press; 2010.
Schultz P, Wesley J, Nolan M, Cialdini R, Goldstein N, Griskevicius V. The Constructive, Destructive,
and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological science. 2007; 18:429–434. [PubMed:
17576283]
Schwarz N. Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist. 1999; 54:93–
105.
Schwarz N. Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition. 2007; 25:638–56.
Schwarz N, Strack F, Mai H. Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A
Author Manuscript

conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1991; 55:3–23.

Seidl C. Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2002; 16:621–55.
Shafir, E. The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2013.
Shah A, Shafir E, Mullainathan S. Scarcity frames value. Psychological Science. 2015; 26:402–412.
[PubMed: 25676256]
Shang J, Croson R. A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on
the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal. 2009; 119:1422–39.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 23

Sharkey P, Faber J. Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving away
from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects. Annual Review of Sociology.
Author Manuscript

2014; 40:559–579.
Shugan S. The Cost of Thinking. Journal of consumer Research. 1980; 7:99–111.
Simon H. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review. 1956; 63:129.
[PubMed: 13310708]
Simon, H. Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. MIT press;
Simon H. Invariants of human behavior. Annual review of psychology. 1991; 41:1–20.
Simonson I. Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of
Consumer Research. 1989; 16:158–174.
Simonson I, Tversky A. Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of
Marketing Research. 1992; 29:281–95.
Slovic P. Perception of Risk. Science. 1987; 236:280–285. [PubMed: 3563507]
Slovic P. The Construction of Preference. American Psychologist. 1995; 50:364.
Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk. Earthscan Publications; 2000.
Author Manuscript

Slovic P, Monahan J, MacGregor D. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of
using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats.
Law and human behavior. 2000; 24:271. [PubMed: 10846372]
Slovic P, Peters E. Risk perception and Affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2006;
15:322–325.
Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts
about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk analysis. 2004; 24:311–322. [PubMed: 15078302]
Small, M. Unanticipated gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; 2009.
Small M, Sukhu C. Because they were there: Access, deliberation, and the mobilization of networks
for support. Social Networks. 2016; 47:73–84.
Somers M. “We’re No Angels”: Realism, Rational Choice, and Relationality in Social Science.
American Journal of Sociology. 1998; 104:722–784.
Stets, J., Turner, J. Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions: Volume II. New York: Springer; 2014.
Author Manuscript

Stigler G. The development of utility theory. I and II. The Journal of Political Economy. 1950:307–
327.
Strough J, Karns T, Schlosnagle L. Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2011; 1235:57–74. [PubMed: 22023568]
Svenson O. Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational behavior and human performance.
1979; 23(1):86–112.
Swait J. A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs. Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological. 2001; 35(10):903–928.
Swait, J. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1984. Probabilistic choice set
generation in transportation demand models.
Thaler, R., Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York:
Penguin Books; 2009.
Thomas, W., Znaniecki, F. The Polish peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of an immigrant
group. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1918.
Author Manuscript

Train, K. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
2009.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive
Psychology. 1973; 5:207–32.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;
211(4481):453–458. [PubMed: 7455683]
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Rational choice and the Framing of Decisions. Journal of Business.
1986:S251–S278.

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 24

Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice. Psychological Review.
1988; 95:371–384.
Author Manuscript

Tversky A, Simonson I. Context-dependent preferences. Management Science. 1993; 39:1179–1189.

Uzzi B. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 1997; 1:35–67.
Vaisey S. Motivation and Justification: a Dual-Process Model of Culture in Action. American Journal
of Sociology. 2009; 114:1675–1715.
Vaughan D. Rational choice, situated action, and the social control of organizations. Law and Society
Review. 1998:23–61.
Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton university
press; 2007.
Ward A, Ross L, Reed E, Turiel E, Brown T. Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social
conflict and misunderstanding. Values and knowledge. 1997:103–135.
Weber E, Johnson E. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annual review of psychology. 2009;
60:53.
Wedel M, Pieters R. A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Review of marketing research.
Author Manuscript

2008; 4:123–147.
Windschitl P, Weber E. The interpretation of likely depends on the context, but 70% is 70%—right?
The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1999; 25:1514.
Wittink D, Cattin P. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. The Journal of Marketing.
1989:91–96.
Wittink D, Vriens M, Burhenne W. Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical
reflections. International journal of Research in Marketing. 1994; 11:41–52.
Yoon C, Gutchess A, Feinberg F, Polk T. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of neural
dissociations between brand and person judgments. Journal of Consumer Research. 2006; 33(1):
31–40.
Wright P, Weitz B. Time Horizon Effects on Product Evaluation Strategies. Journal of Marketing
Research. 1977; 14:429–443.
Zajonc R. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American psychologist. 1980; 35:151.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.
 Bruch and Feinberg Page 25

SIDEBAR 1: THE CONSTRUCTION OF PREFERENCES

Author Manuscript

Decision researchers have amassed several lines of evidence to suggest that, rather than
being stable constructs that are retrieved on demand, preferences are constructed in the
moment of elicitation (Lichtenstein & Slovic 2006; Bettman, Luce, and Payne 1998).
This finding is echoed in studies of judgments and attitudes, which are also sensitive to
contextual cues (Ross and Nisbett 1991; Schwarz 1999, 2007). Preference variation can
be generated from simple anchors or changes in question wording (e.g., Mandel &
Johnson 2002). A classic finding is that people exhibit preference reversals when making
multiattribute choices; in one context they indicate a preference of A over B, but in
another context they indicate they prefer B over A (e.g., Cox & Grether 1996; Seidl
2002). Several theories have been put forward to explain this effect (see Lichtenstein &
Slovic 2006, Chapter 1 for a review and synthesis). One explanation is that people’s
preferences, attitudes, judgments reflect what comes to mind; and what is salient at one
Author Manuscript

time point may not be salient at another (Higgins 1996; Schwarz, Strack, and Mai 1991).
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Annu Rev Sociol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 July 01.