MARTER: Markov True and Error model of drifting parameters

This paper describes a theory of the variability of risky choice that describes empirical properties of choice data, including sequential effects and systematic violations of response independence. The Markov True and Error (MARTER) model represents the formation and fluctuation of true preferences produced by stochastic variation of parameters over time, which produces changing true preference patterns. This model includes a probabilistic association between true preferences and overt responses due to random error. Computer programs have been developed to simulate data according to this model, to fit data to the TE model, and to test and analyze violations of iid (independent and identical distributions) that are predicted by the model. Data simulated from MARTER models show properties that are characteristic of real data, including violations of iid similar to those observed in previous empirical research. This paper also illustrates how methods based on analysis of binary response proportions do not and in many cases cannot correctly diagnose what model was used to generate the data. The MARTER model is extremely general and neutral with respect to models of risky decision making. For example, the transitive transfer of attention exchange (TAX) model and intransitive Lexicographic Semiorder (LS) models can both be represented as special cases of MARTER, and they can be tested against each other, even when binary choice proportions cannot discriminate which model was used to simulate the data. Software to simulate data according to this model, and to fit data to this model, to test this model, and to compare special case theories are included or linked to this article.

[1]  J. Hey,et al.  Understanding Preference Imprecision , 2019, Journal of Economic Surveys.

[2]  Ulf Böckenholt,et al.  Modelling intransitive preferences: A random-effects approach , 2006 .

[3]  J. Hey,et al.  INVESTIGATING GENERALIZATIONS OF EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA , 1994, Experiments in Economics.

[4]  C. Davis-Stober,et al.  The role of independence and stationarity in probabilistic models of binary choice. , 2018, Journal of behavioral decision making.

[5]  Pavlo R. Blavatskyy,et al.  Models of Stochastic Choice and Decision Theories: Why Both are Important for Analyzing Decisions , 2008 .

[6]  Michael H Birnbaum,et al.  Testing mixture models of transitive preference: comment on Regenwetter, Dana, and Davis-Stober (2011). , 2011, Psychological review.

[7]  M. Birnbaum.  Testing lexicographic semiorders as models of decision making: Priority dominance, integration, interaction, and transitivity , 2010 .

[8]  Barry Sopher,et al.  Intransitive cycles: Rational choice or random error? An answer based on estimation of error rates with experimental data , 1993 .

[9]  A. Tversky.  Intransitivity of preferences. , 1969 .

[10]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[11]  John D. Hey,et al.  Which Error Story is Best? , 2000, Experiments in Economics.

[12]  R. Luce.  Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches , 2000 .

[13]  R. Sugden,et al.  Testing Different Stochastic Specificationsof Risky Choice , 1998 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[15]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Imprecision as an Account of the Preference Reversal Phenomenon , 2007 .

[16]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice , 2006 .

[17]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[18]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making , 2022 .

[19]  Pele Schramm,et al.  The Individual True and Error Model: Getting the Most out of Limited Data , 2019, Judgment and Decision Making.

[20]  H. Morrison.  Testable conditions for triads of paired comparison choices , 1963 .

[21]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Tutorial on Removing the Shackles of Regression Analysis: How to Stay True to Your Theory of Binary Response Probabilities , 2019, Psychological methods.

[22]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[23]  J. Dana,et al.  Transitivity of preferences. , 2011, Psychological review.

[24]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Noisy Preferences in Risky Choice: A Cautionary Note , 2017, Psychological review.

[25]  J. Hey,et al.  Expected utility theory with imprecise probability perception: explaining preference reversals , 2017 .

[26]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  TEMAP2.R: True and Error model analysis program in R , 2018, Judgment and Decision Making.

[27]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Choice, preference, and utility: Probabilistic and deterministic representations , 2016 .

[28]  J. Rieskamp.  The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[29]  Han Bleichrodt,et al.  A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice , 2015, Oper. Res..

[30]  M. Birnbaum.  True-and-error models violate independence and yet they are testable , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[31]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty , 2008 .

[32]  M. Birnbaum.  Testing Mixture Models of Transitive Preference: Comments on Regenwetter, Dana, and Davis-stober (2011) I Thank , 2022 .

[33]  Robert Sugden,et al.  OBSERVING VIOLATIONS OF TRANSITIVITY BY EXPERIMENTAL METHODS , 1991 .

[34]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Reply: Birnbaum’s (2012) statistical tests of independence have unknown Type-I error rates and do not replicate within participant , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[35]  David W Harless,et al.  The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories , 1994 .

[36]  Gustav Theodor Fechner,et al.  Elements of psychophysics , 1966 .

[37]  M. Lee.  Bayesian methods for analyzing true-and-error models , 2018, Judgment and Decision Making.

[38]  Jeffrey P. Bahra,et al.  Separating response variability from structural inconsistency to test models of risky decision making , 2012, Judgment and Decision Making.

[39]  Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca,et al.  Risky Decision Making: Testing for Violations of Transitivity Predicted by an Editing Mechanism , 2016, Judgment and Decision Making.

[40]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Testing a class of models that includes majority rule and regret theories: Transitivity, recycling, and restricted branch independence. , 2015 .

[41]  Daniel R. Cavagnaro,et al.  Transitive in Our Preferences, But Transitive in Different Ways: An Analysis of Choice Variability , 2014 .

[42]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects , 2017 .

[43]  Michael H. Birnbaum,et al.  Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[44]  Jacob Marschak,et al.  Stochastic models of choice behavior , 2007 .

[45]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  A theory of comparative response times and “difference” judgments , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[46]  C. Mckenzie,et al.  Transitivity in context: A rational analysis of intransitive choice and context-sensitive preference. , 2015 .

[47]  Christopher H. Jackson,et al.  Multi-State Models for Panel Data: The msm Package for R , 2011 .

[48]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  QTest 2.1: Quantitative testing of theories of binary choice using Bayesian inference , 2019, Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

[49]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Testing the ‘standard’ model of stochastic choice under risk , 2012 .

[50]  Reanalysis of Butler and Pogrebna (2018) using true and error model , 2020 .

[51]  Pavlo R. Blavatskyy,et al.  Predictably Intransitive Preferences , 2016, Judgment and Decision Making.

[52]  N. Wilcox.  Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison , 2008 .

[53]  Christopher Jackson,et al.  Multi-state modelling with R: the msm package , 2014 .

[54]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Testing Transitivity of Preferences on Two-Alternative Forced Choice Data , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[55]  J. Marschak,et al.  Experimental Tests of Stochastic Decision Theory , 1957 .

[56]  Clintin P Davis-Stober,et al.  QTest: Quantitative Testing of Theories of Binary Choice. , 2014, Decisions.