Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:24:38.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Homo Ordinalus and Sampling Models

The Past, Present, and Future of Decision by Sampling

from Part I - Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

By
Gordon D. A. Brown  and
Lukasz Walasek
Edited by
Klaus Fiedler ,
Peter Juslin  and
Jerker Denrell
Klaus Fiedler
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Peter Juslin
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Jerker Denrell
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Get access

Summary

How do people judge the sizes of things? What determines people’s evaluations of quantities such as prices or wages? People’s judgements and evaluations are typically relative; the same quantity will be judged or evaluated differently when it appears in different comparison samples. This chapter describes a simple psychological account – the Decision by Sampling model – of how sample-based judgements and evaluations are made. According to the model, what matters is the relative ranked position of an item within a comparison sample. For example, an income of $50,000 a year will be evaluated more favourably within a context of four lower and two higher incomes than in relation to one higher and five lower incomes. According to Decision by Sampling, estimates of the relative ranked position of items within comparison contexts are made by simple sampling and ordinal comparison processes. These estimates are assumed to underpin choice and valuation. The chapter reviews the Decision by Sampling model, relates it to other models such as Adaptation Level Theory and Range Frequency Theory, and shows how it can explain the shape of utility curves and probability weighting functions. The relation of coding efficiency to rank-based models is also discussed.

Keywords

samplingjudgementdecisionsrelative rankrange frequency theorydecision by samplingefficient codingutility
Type
Chapter
Information
Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 35 - 65
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achtypi, A., Ashby, N. J. S., Brown, G. D. A., Walasek, L., & Yechiam, E. (2021). The endowment effect and beliefs about the market. Decision, 8, 16–35.Google Scholar
Aldrovandi, S., Brown, G. D. A., & Wood, A. M. (2015). Social norms and rank-based nudging: Changing willingness to pay for healthy food. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 21(3), 242–254.Google Scholar
Aldrovandi, S., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2013). Sentencing, severity, and social norms: A rank-based model of contextual influence on judgments of crimes and punishments. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 538–547.Google Scholar
Aldrovandi, S., Wood, A. M., Maltby, J., & Brown, G. D. A. (2015). Students’ concern about indebtedness: A rank based social norms account. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1307–1327.Google Scholar
Alempaki, D., Canic, E., & Mullett, T. L. et al. (2019). Reexamining how utility and weighting functions get their shapes: A quasi-adversarial collaboration providing a new interpretation. Management Science, 65(10), 4841–4862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alessie, R. J. M., & Kapteyn, A. (1988). Preference formation, incomes, and the distribution of welfare. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 17(1), 77–96.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 574–601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrow, K. J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58(4), 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organised criticality. New York: Copernicus Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, H. B. I. E. (1961). Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. In Rosenblith, W. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhui, R., & Gershman, S. J. (2018). Decision by sampling implements efficient coding of psychoeconomic functions. Psychological Review, 125(6), 985–1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birnbaum, M. H. (1974). Using contextual effects to derive psychophysical scales. Perception & Psychophysics, 15(1), 89–96.Google Scholar
Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2013). Salience and consumer choice. Journal of Political Economy, 121(5), 803–843.Google Scholar
Bower, G. H. (1971). Adaptation-level coding of stimuli and serial position effects. In Appley, M. H. (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory (pp. 175–201). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Boyce, C. J., Brown, G. D. A., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Money and happiness: Rank of income, not income, affects life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 21, 471–475.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2003). Rank dependence in employees’ wellbeing. Retrieved from Paper presented at the Warwick-Brookings conference in Washington DC, June 2003.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Qian, J. (2008). Does wage rank affect employees’ well-being? Industrial Relations, 47(3), 355–389.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., & Matthews, W. J. (2011). Decision by sampling and memory distinctiveness: Range effects from rank-based models of judgment and choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 299.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review, 114(3), 539–576.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., & Walasek, L. (2018). Relative rank theory: The inaccessibility of preferences and the incommensurability of values. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Brown, G. D. A., Wood, A. M., Ogden, R. S., & Maltby, J. (2015). Do student evaluations of university reflect inaccurate beliefs or actual experience? A relative rank model. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(1), 14–26.Google Scholar
Bushong, B., Rabin, M., & Schwartzstein, J. (2021). A model of relative thinking. Review of Economic Studies, 88(1), 162–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, R. (2002). Making comparisons count. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (1999). Scale-invariance as a unifying psychological principle. Cognition, 69(3), B17–B24.Google Scholar
Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61(3), 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D., & Teodorescu, K. (2022). On the effect of perceived patterns in decisions from sampling. Decision, 9(1), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennell, J., & Baddeley, R. (2012). Uncertainty plus prior equals rational bias: An intuitive Bayesian probability weighting function. Psychological Review, 119(4), 878–887.Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., & Juslin, P. (Eds.). (2006). Information sampling and adaptive cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, R. H. (2010). Luxury fever: Weighing the cost of excess. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Frydman, C., & Jin, L. J. (2022). Efficient coding and risky choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(1), 161–213.Google Scholar
Gershoff, A. D., & Burson, K. A. (2011). Knowing where they stand: The role of inferred distributions of others in misestimates of relative standing. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, B. Y., & Niv, Y. (2021). The case against economic values in the orbitofrontal cortex (or anywhere else in the brain). Behavioral Neuroscience, 135(2), 192–201.Google Scholar
Heng, J. A., Woodford, M., & Polania, R. (2020). Efficient sampling and noisy decisions. Elife, 9, e54962.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539.Google Scholar
Hounkpatin, H. O., Wood, A. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2020). Comparing indices of relative deprivation using behavioural evidence Social Science & Medicine, 259, 112829.Google Scholar
Infante, G., Lecouteux, G., & Sugden, R. (2016). Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Janiszewski, C., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1999). A range theory account of price perception. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juslin, P., Winman, A., & Hansson, P. (2007). The naive intuitive statistician: a naive sampling model of intuitive confidence intervals. Psychological Review, 114(3), 678–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
Kamenica, E. (2008). Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. American Economic Review, 98(5), 2127–2149.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A., & Wansbeek, T. (1985). The individual welfare function: A review. Journal of Economic Psychology, 6, 333–363.Google Scholar
Kapteyn, A., Wansbeek, T., & Buyze, J. (1978). Dynamics of preference formation. Economics Letters, 1(1), 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kello, C. T., Brown, G. D. A., & Ferrer-i-Cancho, R. et al. (2010). Scaling laws in cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(5), 223–232.Google Scholar
Kornienko, T. (2013). Nature’s measuring tape: A cognitive basis for adaptive utility. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Köszegi, B., & Szeidl, A. (2013). A model of focusing in economic choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 53–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laming, D. (1997). The measurement of sensation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layard, R., Mayraz, G., & Nickell, S. (2008). The marginal utility of income. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1846–1857.Google Scholar
Lim, R. G. (1995). A range-frequency explanation of shifting reference points in risky decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(1), 6–20.Google Scholar
Louie, K., & Glimcher, P. W. (2019). Normalization principles in computational neuroscience. In Sherman, S. M. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of neuroscience (pp. 1–41). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macchia, L., Plagnol, A. C., & Powdthavee, N. (2020). Buying happiness in an unequal world: Rank of income more strongly predicts well-being in more unequal countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 769–780.Google Scholar
Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., Vlaev, I., Taylor, M. J., & Brown, G. D. A. (2012). Contextual effects on the perceived health benefits of exercise: The Exercise Rank Hypothesis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(6), 828–841.Google Scholar
Mazumdar, T., Raj, S. P., & Sinha, I. (2005). Reference price research: Review and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 84–102.Google Scholar
Mellers, B. A. (1986). Fair allocations of salaries and taxes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(1), 80–91.Google Scholar
Melrose, K. L., Brown, G. D. A., & Wood, A. M. (2013). Am I abnormal? Relative rank and social norm effects in judgments of anxiety and depression symptom severity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
Mullett, T. L., & Tunney, R. J. (2013). Value representations by rank order in a distributed network of varying context dependency. Brain and Cognition, 82(1), 76–83.Google Scholar
Murdock, B. B. (1960). The distinctiveness of stimuli. Psychological Review, 67(1), 16–31.Google Scholar
Niedrich, R. W., Sharma, S., & Wedell, D. H. (2001). Reference price and price perceptions: A comparison of alternative models. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 339–354.Google Scholar
Noguchi, T., & Stewart, N. (2014). In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions. Cognition, 132(1), 44–56.Google Scholar
Noguchi, T., & Stewart, N. (2018). Multi-alternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data. Psychological Review, 125(4), 512–544.Google Scholar
Olivola, C. Y., & Sagara, N. (2009). Distributions of observed death tolls govern sensitivity to human fatalities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(52), 22151–22156.Google Scholar
Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Intuitive judgments of social statistics: How exhaustive does sampling need to be? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1059–1077.Google Scholar
Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2009). Range-adapting representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(44), 14004–14014.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72(6), 407–418.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgments. Scientific American, 219(6), 84–90.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1982). Scale values and phenomenal experience: There is no psychophysical law. In Geissler, H.-G. & Petzold, P. (Eds.), Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (pp. 11–16). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1992). Elaborations upon psychophysical contexts for judgment: Implications of cognitive models. In Geissler, H. G., Link, S. W., & Townsend, J. T. (Eds.), Cognition, information processing, and psychophysics: Basic issues (pp. 207–223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Parducci, A., & Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(2), 427–452.Google Scholar
Poulton, E. C. (1979). Models for biases in judging sensory magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 86(4), 777–803.Google Scholar
Prelec, D., Wernerfelt, B., & Zettelmeyer, F. (1997). The role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 118–125.Google Scholar
Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 323–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rablen, M. D. (2008). Relativity, rank and the utility of income. Economic Journal, 118(528), 801–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rangel, A., & Clithero, J. A. (2012). Value normalization in decision making: Theory and evidence. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 22(6), 970–981.Google Scholar
Rigoli, F. (2019). Reference effects on decision-making elicited by previous rewards. Cognition, 192, 104034.Google Scholar
Robson, A. J. (2001). The biological basis of economic behavior. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(1), 11–33.Google Scholar
Ronayne, D., & Brown, G. D. A. (2017). Multi-attribute decision by sampling: An account of the attraction, compromise and similarity effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 81, 11–27.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A., & Salant, Y. (2012). Eliciting welfare preferences from behavioural data sets. Review of Economic Studies, 79(1), 375–387.Google Scholar
Rustichini, A. (2009). Neuroeconomics: What have we found, and what should we search for. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(6), 672–677.Google Scholar
Rustichini, A., Conen, K. E., Cai, X. Y., & Padoa-Schioppa, C. (2017). Optimal coding and neuronal adaptation in economic decisions. Nature Communications, 8.Google Scholar
Schaffner, J., Tobler, P., Hare, T., & Polania, R. (2021). Neural codes in early sensory areas maximize fitness. bioRxiv (2021.05.10.443388).Google Scholar
Schulze, C., Hertwig, R., & Pachur, T. (2021). Who you know is what you know: Modeling boundedly rational social sampling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 221–241.Google Scholar
Shenoy, P., & Yu, A. J. (2013). Rational preference shifts in multi-attribute choice: What is fair? In Knauff, M., Pauen, M., Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1300–1305). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237(4820), 1317–1323.Google Scholar
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2014). Options as information: Rational reversals of evaluation and preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1127–1143.Google Scholar
Simonson, I. (2008). Will I like a ‘medium’ pillow? Another look at constructed and inherent preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(3), 155–169.Google Scholar
Singh, S. K., & Maddala, G. S. (1976). Function for size distribution of incomes. Econometrica, 44(5), 963–970.Google Scholar
Soltani, A., De Martino, B., & Camerer, C. (2012). A range-normalization model of context-dependent choice: A new model and evidence. PLOS Computational Biology, 8(7), e1002607.Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64(3), 153–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2013). Subjective well-being and income: Is there any evidence of satiation? American Economic Review, 103(3), 598–604.Google Scholar
Stewart, N. (2009). Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1041–1062.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2005). Similarity and dissimilarity as evidence in perceptual categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 403–409.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2002). Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28(1), 3–11.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2005). Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review, 112(4), 881–911.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Canic, E., & Mullett, T. L. (2019). On the futility of estimating utility functions: Why the parameters we measure are wrong, and why they do not generalize. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Chater, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2006). Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psychology, 53(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Reimers, S., & Harris, A. J. L. (2015). On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: How they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Management Science, 61(3), 687–705.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. J., Vlaev, I., Maltby, J., Brown, G. D. A., & Wood, A. M. (2015). Improving social norms interventions: Rank-framing increases excessive alcohol drinkers’ information-seeking. Health Psychology, 34(12), 1200–1203.Google Scholar
Tripp, J., & Brown, G. D. A. (2016). Being paid relatively well most of the time: Negatively skewed payments are more satisfying. Memory & Cognition, 44(6), 966–973.Google Scholar
Ungemach, C., Stewart, N., & Reimers, S. (2011). How incidental values from our environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay. Psychological Science, 22, 253–260.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. M. S. (1968). Individual welfare functions and consumer behavior: A theory of rational irrationality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Van Praag, B. M. S., & Kapteyn, A. (1973). Further evidence on the individual welfare function of income: An empirical investigation in The Netherlands. European Economic Review, 4(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
Volkmann, J. (1951). Scales of judgment and their implications for social psychology. In Rohrer, J. H. & Sherif, M. (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads (pp. 273–294). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Walasek, L., & Brown, G. D. A. (2021). Incomparability and incommensurability in choice: No common currency of value? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Walasek, L., & Stewart, N. (2019). Context-dependent sensitivity to losses: Range and skew manipulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 45(6), 957–968.Google Scholar
Watkinson, P., Wood, A. M., Lloyd, D. M., & Brown, G. D. A. (2013). Pain ratings reflect cognitive context: A range frequency model of pain perception. Pain, 154(5), 743–749.Google Scholar
Webb, R., Glimcher, P. W., & Louie, K. (2021). The normalization of consumer valuations: Context-dependent preferences from neurobiological constraints. Management Science, 67, 93–125.Google Scholar
Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 767–778.Google Scholar
Wedell, D. H. (1998). Testing models of trade-off contrast in pairwise choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(1), 49–65.Google Scholar
Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(3), 230–249.Google Scholar
Wedell, D. H., Santoyo, E. M., & Pettibone, J. C. (2005). The thick and the thin of it: Contextual effects in body perception. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(3), 213–227.Google Scholar
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (4), 627–633.Google Scholar
Wood, A. M., Brown, G. D. A., & Maltby, J. (2012). Social norm influences on evaluations of the risks associated with alcohol consumption: Applying the rank-based decision by sampling model to health judgments. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 47(1), 57–62.Google Scholar
Wood, A. M., Brown, G. D. A., Maltby, J., & Watkinson, P. (2012). How are personality judgments made? A cognitive model of reference group effects, personality scale responses, and behavioral reactions. Journal of Personality, 80, 1275–1311.Google Scholar
Wort, F., Walasek, L., & Brown, G. D. A. (2022). Rank-based alternatives to mean-based ensemble models of satisfaction with earnings: Comment on Putnam-Farr and Morewedge (2020). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 151(11), 2963–2967.Google Scholar
Zou, D., Brown, G. D. A., Zhao, P., & Dong, S. (2008). 概率权重函数形状的成因：二元比较任务中的发现. [The shape of the probability weighting function: Findings from binary comparison.] 营销科学学报 [Journal of Marketing Science; Tsinghua University], 56–69.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×