TEMAP2.R: True and Error model analysis program in R

True and Error Theory (TET) provides a method to separate the variability of behavior into components due to changing true policy and to random error. TET is a testable theory that can serve as a statistical model, allowing one to evaluate substantive theories as nested, special cases. TET is more accurate descriptively and has theoretical advantages over previous approaches. This paper presents a freely available computer program in R that can be used to fit and evaluate both TET and substantive theories that are special cases of it. The program performs Monte Carlo simulations to generate distributions of test statistics and bootstrapping to provide confidence intervals on parameter estimates. Use of the program is illustrated by a reanalysis of previously published data testing whether what appeared to be violations of Expected Utility (EU) theory (Allais paradoxes) by previous methods might actually be consistent with EU theory.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[2]  Bradley Efron,et al.  Bayesian inference and the parametric bootstrap. , 2012, The annals of applied statistics.

[3]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  Bayesian outcome-based strategy classification , 2016, Behavior research methods.

[4]  M. Birnbaum.  Causes of Allais common consequence paradoxes: An experimental dissection ☆ , 2004 .

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

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

[7]  John Conlisk,et al.  Three Variants on the Allais Example , 1989 .

[8]  David M. Riefer,et al.  Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling , 1999, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  M. Allais.  The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School (1952) , 1979 .

[10]  B. Hilbig,et al.  Generalized outcome-based strategy classification: Comparing deterministic and probabilistic choice models , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

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

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

[13]  Morten Moshagen,et al.  multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models , 2010, Behavior research methods.

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

[15]  Jeffrey P. Bahra,et al.  Testing transitivity of preferences using linked designs , 2012, Judgment and Decision Making.

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

[17]  Joseph Berkson,et al.  Estimation by Least Squares and by Maximum Likelihood , 1956 .

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

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

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

[21]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[22]  B. Hilbig,et al.  Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. , 2009 .

[23]  M. Birnbaum.  Tests of Branch Splitting and Branch-Splitting Independence in Allais Paradoxes with Positive and Mixed Consequences. , 2007 .

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

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

[26]  Robert Sugden,et al.  A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice , 2002 .

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

[28]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Behavioral Research Data Analysis with R , 2011 .

[29]  Henrik Singmann,et al.  MPTinR: Analysis of multinomial processing tree models in R , 2013, Behavior research methods.