Multialternative Decision by Sampling: A Model of Decision Making Constrained by Process Data

Sequential sampling of evidence, or evidence accumulation, has been implemented in a variety of models to explain a range of multialternative choice phenomena. But the existing models do not agree on what, exactly, the evidence is that is accumulated. They also do not agree on how this evidence is accumulated. In this article, we use findings from process-tracing studies to constrain the evidence accumulation process. With these constraints, we extend the decision by sampling model and propose the multialternative decision by sampling (MDbS) model. In MDbS, the evidence accumulated is outcomes of pairwise ordinal comparisons between attribute values. MDbS provides a quantitative account of the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects equal to that of other models, and captures a wider range of empirical phenomena than other models.

[1]  Nigel Harvey,et al.  Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2004 .

[2]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian data analysis, third edition , 2013 .

[3]  Timothy L. Mullett,et al.  Eye Movements in Strategic Choice , 2015, Journal of behavioral decision making.

[4]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice , 2012 .

[5]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs. , 2006, Psychological review.

[6]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bdm.557 Testing Alternative Explanations of Phantom Decoy Effects , 2007 .

[7]  Carey K. Morewedge,et al.  Winners Love Winning and Losers Love Money , 2011, Psychological science.

[8]  Alan D. J. Cooke,et al.  Multiattribute judgment : Attribute spacing influences single attributes , 1998 .

[9]  David E. Buschena,et al.  Testing the Effects of Similarity on Risky Choice: Implications for Violations of Expected Utility , 1999 .

[10]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[11]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Decision by Sampling and Memory Distinctiveness: Range Effects from Rank-Based Models of Judgment and Choice , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[12]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  Context Effects Without a Context: Attribute Balance as a Reason for Choice , 2005 .

[13]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Implications of Thresholds in Discrete Choice Modelling , 2006 .

[14]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. , 2004, Psychological review.

[16]  A. Tversky Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[17]  Ian Krajbich,et al.  Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  David Gal,et al.  A psychological law of inertia and the illusion of loss aversion , 2005, Judgment and Decision Making.

[19]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[20]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  The fragile nature of contextual preference reversals: Reply to Tsetsos, Chater, and Usher (2015). , 2015, Psychological review.

[21]  J I Shaw,et al.  Centrality Preferences in Choices Among Similar Options , 2000, The Journal of general psychology.

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[23]  D. Medin,et al.  Similarity and Alignment in Choice , 1995 .

[24]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[25]  N. Anderson Foundations of information integration theory , 1981 .

[26]  Donald Laming,et al.  The relativity of ‘absolute’ judgements , 1984 .

[27]  Sudeep Bhatia,et al.  Associations and the accumulation of preference. , 2013, Psychological review.

[28]  N. Christenfeld Choices from Identical Options , 1995 .

[29]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. , 2004, Psychological review.

[30]  C. Plott,et al.  The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the 'Endowment Effect,' Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations , 2005 .

[31]  Alireza Soltani,et al.  A Range-Normalization Model of Context-Dependent Choice: A New Model and Evidence , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[32]  Colin Camerer Three Cheers—Psychological, Theoretical, Empirical—for Loss Aversion , 2005 .

[33]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[34]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[35]  Shi Zhang,et al.  Processing Product Unique Features: Alignability and Involvement in Preference Construction , 2001 .

[36]  J. Little,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Latitude of Price Acceptance in Consumer Package Goods , 1994 .

[37]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[38]  Neil Stewart,et al.  How to Make Loss Aversion Disappear and Reverse: Tests of the Decision by Sampling Origin of Loss Aversion , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  David E. Buschena,et al.  Evaluation of similarity models for expected utility violations , 2011 .

[40]  Neil Stewart,et al.  On the Origin of Utility, Weighting, and Discounting Functions: How They Get Their Shapes and How to Change Their Shapes , 2015, Manag. Sci..

[41]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[42]  John N. Pinto,et al.  Employees' perception of pay increases , 1989 .

[43]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

[44]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[45]  A. Parducci Category judgment: a range-frequency model. , 1965, Psychological review.

[46]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation , 2008, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  A. Rubinstein Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?) , 1988 .

[48]  Timothy L. Mullett,et al.  Implications of Visual Attention Phenomena for Models of Preferential Choice , 2016, Decision.

[49]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[50]  A. Tversky,et al.  Context-dependent preferences , 1993 .

[51]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[52]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Dimensional Commensurability and Cue Utilization in Comparative Judgment. , 1974 .

[53]  A. Rangel,et al.  Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[55]  Sabrina M. Tom,et al.  The Neural Basis of Loss Aversion in Decision-Making Under Risk , 2007, Science.

[56]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[57]  Sumio Watanabe,et al.  A widely applicable Bayesian information criterion , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[58]  D. H. Wedell,et al.  Distinguishing Among Models of Contextually Induced Preference Reversals , 1991 .

[59]  Kfir Eliaz,et al.  Reason-Based Choice: A Bargaining Rationale for the Attraction and Compromise Effects , 2009 .

[60]  Marius Usher,et al.  Disentangling decision models: from independence to competition. , 2013, Psychological review.

[61]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[62]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  An eye fixation analysis of multialternative choice , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[63]  Charles M. Futrell,et al.  Marketing executives' perceptions of equitable salary increases , 1985 .

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

[65]  J. E. Russo,et al.  An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables , 1994 .

[66]  Benjamin Heydecker,et al.  A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds forperception in attribute values , 2006 .

[67]  J. Knetsch The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves. , 1989 .

[68]  N. Chater,et al.  Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. , 2010, Psychological review.

[69]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Seven plus or minus two: a commentary on capacity limitations. , 1994, Psychological review.

[70]  V. Reyna A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace Theory. , 2012, Judgment and decision making.

[71]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Decision by sampling , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[72]  Andrew M. Parker,et al.  Understanding the mechanism and determinants of compromise effects , 2005 .

[73]  R. Poldrack,et al.  Prospect Theory and the Brain , 2009 .

[74]  J. Pettibone Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice , 2012 .

[75]  J. Payne,et al.  Comparison selection: An approach to the study of consumer judgment and choice , 2013 .

[76]  Alexander Chernev,et al.  Extremeness Aversion and Attribute-Balance Effects in Choice , 2004 .

[77]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Processing Product Unique Features , 2001 .

[78]  I. Simonson,et al.  Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice , 1994 .

[79]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Absolute identification by relative judgment. , 2005, Psychological review.

[80]  S. Reimers,et al.  How Incidental Values From the Environment Affect Decisions About Money, Risk, and Delay , 2011, Psychological science.

[81]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[82]  Aki Vehtari,et al.  Understanding predictive information criteria for Bayesian models , 2013, Statistics and Computing.

[83]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[84]  Manohar U. Kalwani,et al.  Consumer Price and Promotion Expectations: An Experimental Study , 1992 .

[85]  Jonathan W. Leland Generalized similarity judgments: An alternative explanation for choice anomalies , 1994 .

[86]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Context-Dependent Selection: The Effects of Decoy and Phantom Job Candidates , 1996 .

[87]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Interrupting the cascade: Orienting contributes to decision making even in the absence of visual stimulation , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[88]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[89]  Nick Chater,et al.  Examining the mechanisms underlying contextual preference reversal: Comment on Trueblood, Brown, and Heathcote (2014). , 2015, Psychological review.

[90]  Adele Diederich,et al.  The 2N-ary Choice Tree Model for N-Alternative Preferential Choice , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[91]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  The Attraction Effect in Decision Making: Superior Performance by Older Adults , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[92]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Computational Models of Decision Making , 2003 .

[93]  Sunil Gupta,et al.  Consumer price sensitivity and price thresholds , 2001 .

[94]  Adele Diederich,et al.  Simple matrix methods for analyzing diffusion models of choice probability, choice response time, and simple response time , 2003 .

[95]  Takao Noguchi,et al.  In the attraction, compromise, and similarity effects, alternatives are repeatedly compared in pairs on single dimensions , 2014, Cognition.

[96]  A. Chernev,et al.  Perceptual Focus Effects in Choice , 2007 .

[97]  N. Anderson Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[98]  Neil Stewart EPS Prize Lecture: Decision by sampling: The role of the decision environment in risky choice , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[99]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. , 2014, Psychological review.

[100]  Alan D. J. Cooke,et al.  Trade-offs depend on attribute range. , 1994 .

[101]  Neil Stewart,et al.  A decision-by-sampling account of decision under risk , 2008 .

[102]  Wedell,et al.  Examining Models of Nondominated Decoy Effects across Judgment and Choice. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[103]  Jennifer S. Trueblood,et al.  The Fragile Nature of Contextual Preference Reversals 1 RUNNING HEAD : The Fragile Nature of Contextual Preference Reversals The Fragile Nature of Contextual Preference Reversals : Reply to Tsetsos , Chater , and Usher , 2015 .

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