Integrated preference argumentation and applications in consumer behaviour analyses

Abstract

Consumer preference studies in economics rest heavily on the behavioural interpretation of preference especially in the form of Revealed Preference Theory (RPT). Viewing purchasing decisions as a kind of human reasoning, in this paper we are interested in generalising behaviourism to preference-based argumentation where existing frameworks are arguably governed by the opposing mentalistic interpretation of preference. Concretely our contributions are three-fold. First we re-construct and unify two main approaches to RPT in argumentation terms by developing a Revealed Preference Argumentation (RPA) framework. We show that key RPT-based consumer analyses such as different rationality checks of a consumer behaviour and various kinds of such behaviour's extrapolations can be translated to computational tasks in RPA. RPA is in turn subsumed by the second contribution - an Integrated Preference Argumentation (IPA) framework which fully integrates mentalism and behaviourism. In particular we show that RPA is just a special case of IPA with only revealed preference, while existing preference-based argumentation frameworks can be viewed as IPA frameworks with only stated preference. As the third contribution, we develop a complete set of IPA algorithms and establish their correctness and termination for a general class of IPA frameworks. For demonstration we implement the algorithms in Prolog to obtain an IPA reasoning engine and test the engine with various RPT-based consumer behaviour analyses. In sum, it is argued that the current paper provides not only a theory of Integrated Preference Argumentation, but also a related development tool for future applications of argumentation to behavioural economics - a largely unexplored area so far though Dung used the stable marriage problem in microeconomic game theory to partly motivate the argumentation theory.