Modeling valuations from experience: A comment on Ashby and Rakow (2014).

What are the cognitive mechanisms underlying subjective valuations formed on the basis of sequential experiences of an option's possible outcomes? Ashby and Rakow (2014) have proposed a sliding window model (SWIM), according to which people's valuations represent the average of a limited sample of recent experiences (the size of which is estimated by the model) formed after sampling has been terminated (i.e., an end-of-sequence process). Ashby and Rakow presented results from which they concluded, on the basis of model-selection criteria, that the SWIM performs well compared with alternative models (e.g., value-updating model, summary model). Further, they reported that the individual window sizes estimated by the SWIM correlated with a measure of working-memory capacity. In a reanalysis of the Ashby and Rakow data, we find no clear evidence in support of any of the models tested, and a slight advantage for the summary model. Further, we demonstrate that individual differences in the window-size estimated by the SWIM can reflect differences in noise. In computer simulations, we examine the more general question of how well the models tested by Ashby and Rakow can actually be discriminated. The results reveal that the models' ability to fit data depends on a complex interplay of noise and the sample size of outcomes on which a valuation response is based. This can critically influence model performance and conclusions regarding the underlying cognitive mechanisms. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest ways of improving model comparisons in valuations from experience. (PsycINFO Database Record

[1]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[2]  H. Akaike INFORMATION THEORY AS AN EXTENSION OF THE MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD , 1973 .

[3]  H. Akaike,et al.  Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle , 1973 .

[4]  G. Schwarz Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

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

[6]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  J. March Learning to be risk averse. , 1996 .

[8]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

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

[10]  N. Cowan The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[11]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  AIC model selection using Akaike weights , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Jay I. Myung,et al.  Assessing the distinguishability of models and the informativeness of data , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[14]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The role of information sampling in risky choice , 2006 .

[15]  Jay I. Myung,et al.  Model selection by Normalized Maximum Likelihood , 2006 .

[16]  Duncan James,et al.  Stability of risk preference parameter estimates within the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak procedure , 2007 .

[17]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  The Description-Experience Gap in Risky Choice: The Role of Sample Size and Experienced Probabilities , 2008 .

[18]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Comparison of Decision Learning Models Using the Generalization Criterion Method , 2008, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Jay I. Myung,et al.  Optimal experimental design for model discrimination. , 2009, Psychological review.

[20]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The description–experience gap in risky choice , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Information Search in Decisions From Experience , 2010, Psychological science.

[22]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description , 2010 .

[23]  Varun Dutt,et al.  Instance-based learning: integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience. , 2011, Psychological review.

[24]  Cleotilde González,et al.  How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience , 2012, Cognition.

[25]  Thorsten Pachur,et al.  Constructing preference from experience: the endowment effect reflected in external information search. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Adaptive Information Search and Decision Making over Single and Repeated Plays , 2012, CogSci.

[27]  A. Baddeley Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. , 2012, Annual review of psychology.

[28]  S. Vrieze Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). , 2012, Psychological methods.

[29]  Kathrin Johansen Information search in pension plan decisions , 2013 .

[30]  Nathaniel J. S. Ashby,et al.  Forgetting the past: individual differences in recency in subjective valuations from experience. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  Andrew Heathcote,et al.  An introduction to good practices in cognitive modeling , 2015 .

[32]  Thorsten Pachur,et al.  Using Bayesian hierarchical parameter estimation to assess the generalizability of cognitive models of choice , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[33]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Online product reviews and the description-experience gap , 2015 .

[34]  Stephan Lewandowsky,et al.  Computational Modeling in Cognition and Cognitive Neuroscience , 2018 .