Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances

Choice models in marketing and economics are generally derived without specifying the underlying cognitive process of decision making. This approach has been successfully used to predict choice behavior. However, it has not much to say about such aspects of decision making as deliberation, attention, conflict, and cognitive limitations and how these influence choices. In contrast, sequential sampling models developed in cognitive psychology explain observed choices based on assumptions about cognitive processes that return the observed choice as the terminal state. We illustrate three advantages of this perspective. First, making explicit assumptions about underlying cognitive processes results in measures of deliberation, attention, conflict, and cognitive limitation. Second, the mathematical representations of underlying cognitive processes imply well documented departures from Luce’s Choice Axiom such as the similarity, compromise, and attraction effects. Third, the process perspective predicts response time and thus allows for inference based on observed choices and response times. Finally, we briefly discuss the relationship between these cognitive models and rules for statistically optimal decisions in sequential designs.

[1]  M. Stone.  Models for choice-reaction time , 1960 .

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

[3]  Diederich,et al.  Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making under Time Constraints , 1997, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[4]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Stochastic Dynamic Models of Response Time and Accuracy: A Foundational Primer. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[5]  A. Tversky.  Choice by elimination , 1972 .

[6]  S. MacEachern,et al.  The Dependent Poisson Race Model and Modeling Dependence in Conjoint Choice Experiments , 2007 .

[7]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  An Integrated Model of Discrete Choice and Response Time with Application to Conjoint Analysis , 2006 .

[8]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Counting Every Thought: Implicit Measures of Cognitive Responses to Advertising , 2008 .

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

[10]  J. Townsend.  SOME RESULTS CONCERNING THE IDENTIFIABILITY OF PARALLEL AND SERIAL PROCESSES , 1972 .

[11]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Behavioral frontiers in choice modeling , 2008 .

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

[13]  J. Townsend,et al.  Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: an investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories , 1995 .

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

[15]  W. Wong,et al.  The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation , 1987 .

[16]  D. Vickers,et al.  Evidence for an accumulator model of psychophysical discrimination. , 1970, Ergonomics.

[17]  P. Holmes,et al.  The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives , 2006 .

[18]  A. Diederich.  MDFT account of decision making under time pressure , 2003, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[19]  Joseph G. Johnson,et al.  A dynamic, stochastic, computational model of preference reversal phenomena. , 2005, Psychological review.

[20]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

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

[22]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[23]  A. Diederich,et al.  Conflict and the Stochastic-Dominance Principle of Decision Making , 1999 .

[24]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Toward the trichotomy method of reaction times: laying the foundation of stochastic mental networks , 1989 .

[25]  Joel Huber,et al.  Market Boundaries and Product Choice: Illustrating Attraction and Substitution Effects , 1983 .

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

[27]  D. LaBerge.  A recruitment theory of simple behavior , 1962 .

[28]  R. Bogacz.  Optimal decision-making theories: linking neurobiology with behaviour , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[29]  F. Ashby.  A biased random walk model for two choice reaction times , 1983 .

[30]  A. Diederich.  Decision making under conflict: Decision time as a measure of conflict strength , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[32]  Greg M. Allenby,et al.  Estimating Heterogeneous EBA and Economic Screening Rule Choice Models , 2006 .

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

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

[35]  Angela M. Dean,et al.  The Dependent Poisson Race Model and Modeling Dependence in Conjoint Choice Experiments , 2008 .

[36]  N. Perrin,et al.  Varieties of perceptual independence. , 1986, Psychological review.

[37]  Oded Netzer,et al.  Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect , 2004 .

[38]  J. Townsend,et al.  A theory of interactive parallel processing: new capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. , 2004, Psychological review.