Comparing attribute-based and memory-based preferential choice

Abstract

Common theories of multiattribute preferential choice predict that people choose options that have on average better attribute values than alternative options. However, following an alternative memorybased view on preferences people might sometimes prefer options that are more similar to memorized options that were experienced positively in the past. In two incentivized preferential choice experiments (N = 32, N = 28), we empirically compare these theoretical accounts, finding support for the memory-based value theory. Computational modeling using predictive model comparison showed that only a few participants could be described by a model that uses sums of subjectively weighted attribute values when experience was available. Most participants’ choices resembled the predictions of the memorybased model, according to which preferences are based on the similarity between novel and old memorized options. Further, people whose experience consisted of direct sensory exposure, like tasting a portion of food, were also those with higher likelihoods of a memory-based process, compared to people whose exposure was indirect. These results highlight the central role of memory and experience in preferential choices and add to the growing evidence for memory and similarity-based processes in the domain of human preferences.