Understanding human strategies for change: An empirical study

Karol, A; Williams, MA

Understanding human strategies for change: An empirical study

Karol, A Williams, MA

Permalink

Publication Type:: Conference Proceeding
Citation:: Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on the Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 2005, pp. 137 - 149
Issue Date:: 2005-12-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download full textAdobe PDF (463.41 kB)

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Karol, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Williams, MA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1047-0503	en_US
dc.date.issued	2005-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on the Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, 2005, pp. 137 - 149	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	9810534124	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/7565
dc.description.abstract	The ability to model changes in preferences is crucially important for sound decision making and effective communication. Much has been written about strategies for changing beliefs and preferences. Typically such strategies have been driven by theoretical considerations, intuitive notions of rationality, and an appeal to the principle of Minimal Change. In this paper we describe an experiment in which people were asked to rank information, then given some new information, and asked to re-rank the information. We analyse the results and provide comparisons with some well known computational strategies. Some of the results are surprising, for example, a large percentage of human strategies can be classified as either Conditionalization, Adjustment, or a combination.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on the Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge	en_US
dc.title	Understanding human strategies for change: An empirical study	en_US
dc.type	Conference Proceeding
utslib.for	0802 Computation Theory and Mathematics	en_US
dc.location.activity	Singapore	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Software
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CAI - Centre for Artificial Intelligence
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

The ability to model changes in preferences is crucially important for sound decision making and effective communication. Much has been written about strategies for changing beliefs and preferences. Typically such strategies have been driven by theoretical considerations, intuitive notions of rationality, and an appeal to the principle of Minimal Change. In this paper we describe an experiment in which people were asked to rank information, then given some new information, and asked to re-rank the information. We analyse the results and provide comparisons with some well known computational strategies. Some of the results are surprising, for example, a large percentage of human strategies can be classified as either Conditionalization, Adjustment, or a combination.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/7565