Express analysis for prioritization: Best–Worst Scaling alteration to System 1

References

• Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, S. L. (2010). Intelligent cognition-based systems approach to multiple-criteria computerized essay assessment. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 27(6), 680–696. doi: 10.1002/sres.1001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Gut feelings: Short Cuts to better decision making. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2017). The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. doi: 10.1037/h0034747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S. (2009). Optimal hierarchy structures for multi-attribute-criteria decisions. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 22, 228–242. doi: 10.1007/s11424-009-9159-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S. (2015). Analytical closed-form solution for binary logit regression by categorical predictors. Journal of Applied Statistics, 42(1), 37–49. doi: 10.1080/02664763.2014.932760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S. (2018a). Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling. Journal of Choice Modelling, 27, 62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jocm.2017.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S. (2018b). Maxdiff choice probability estimations on aggregate and individual level. International Journal of Business Analytics, 5(1), 55–69. doi: 10.4018/IJBAN.2018010104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S., & Conklin, M. (2014a). Best-worst scaling in analytical closed-form solution. Journal of Choice Modelling, 10, 60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jocm.2014.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S., & Conklin, M. (2014b). Finding items cannibalization and synergy by BWS data. Journal of Choice Modelling, 12, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jocm.2014.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S., & Conklin, M. (2018). Decreasing respondent Heterogeneity by Likert scales adjustment via multipoles. Stats, 1, 169–175. doi: 10.3390/stats1010012
   Google Scholar
• Lipovetsky, S., & Conklin, M. (2019). Choice models adjusted to non-available items and network effects. International Journal of Business Analytics, 6(1), 1–19. doi: 10.4018/IJBAN.2019010101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. J. (1991). Best-worst scaling: A model for the largest difference judgments. Working Paper, University of Alberta, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. J. (1993). The Best-worst or maximum difference measurement model: Applications to behavioral research in marketing. The American Marketing Association’s Behavioral Research Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. J., Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. A. J. (2015). Best-Worst Scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marley, A. A. J., Flynn, T. N., & Louviere, J. J. (2008). Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 281–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2008.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marley, A. A. J., Islam, T., & Hawkins, G. E. (2016). A formal and empirical comparison of two score measures for best–worst scaling. Journal of Choice Modelling, 21, 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jocm.2016.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marley, A., & Louviere, J. (2005). Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 464–480. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2005.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers of econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In C. Manski & D. McFadden (Eds.), Structural analysis of discrete data (pp. 198–272). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D., & Richter, M. K. (1990). Stochastic rationality and revealed stochastic preference. In J. Chipman, D. McFadden, & M. Richter (Eds.), Preferences, uncertainty, and optimality: Essays in Honor of Leo Hurwicz (pp. 151–186). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen Norman Group. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/author/jennifer-cardello/; https://www.nngroup.com/articles/first-impressions-human-automaticity/
   Google Scholar
• Orme, B. K. (2010). Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Research Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Research Access. (2013). Retrieved from http://researchaccess.com/2013/09/benchmarking-emotional-reactions-to-concept-tests/
   Google Scholar
• Samson, A. (2016). The Behavioral Economics Guide 2016 (with an introduction by Gerd Gigerenzer). Retrieved from http://www.behavioraleconomics.com
   Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software. (2007). Technical paper series: The MaxDiff/Web v6.0. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
   Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software. (2013). Technical paper series: The MaxDiff System,Version 8. Sequim, WA: Sawtooth Software.
   Google Scholar
• Scientific American. (2012). Of 2 minds: How fast and slow thinking shape perception and choice. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kahneman-excerpt-thinking-fast-and-slow/
   Google Scholar
• Shleifer, A. (2012). Psychologists at the gate: A review of Daniel Kahneman’s thinking, fast and slow. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1–12. doi: 10.1257/jel.50.4.1080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00003435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• System1 Group, PLC (previously, Brain Juicer). (2017). Retrieved from https://www.system1group.com/; http://pages.system1group.com/s1g-book-enquiries
   Google Scholar
• Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• TRC Market Research. (2012). GreenBook blog. Retrieved from https://greenbookblog.org/2012/03/15/lessons-from-thinking-fast-slow-system-1-and-system-2/
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.293
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upfront Analytics. (2017). Retrieved from http://upfrontanalytics.com/market-research-system-1-vs-system-2-decision-making/
   Google Scholar
• Wang, F., Wei, J., & Zhao, D. (2014). A quantifiable risky decision model: Incorporating individual memory into informational cascade. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 31(4), 537–553. doi: 10.1002/sres.2294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, D. D., & Olson, D. L. (2014). A system dynamic modelling of contagion effects in accounts risk management. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 31(4), 502–511. doi: 10.1002/sres.2291
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., & Wu, X. (2016). Retracted: Intrinsic preferences, revealed preferences and bounded rational decisions. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 33(1), 205. doi: 10.1002/sres.2120
   Google Scholar