Cognitive Models of Choice: Comparing Decision Field Theory to the Proportional Difference Model

People often face preferential decisions under risk. To further our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying these preferential choices, two prominent cognitive models, decision field theory (DFT; Busemeyer & Townsend, 1993) and the proportional difference model (PD; González-Vallejo, 2002), were rigorously tested against each other. In two consecutive experiments, the participants repeatedly had to choose between monetary gambles. The first experiment provided the reference to estimate the models' free parameters. From these estimations, new gamble pairs were generated for the second experiment such that the two models made maximally divergent predictions. In the first experiment, both models explained the data equally well. However, in the second generalization experiment, the participants' choices were much closer to the predictions of DFT. The results indicate that the stochastic process assumed by DFT, in which evidence in favor of or against each option accumulates over time, described people's choice behavior better than the trade-offs between proportional differences assumed by PD.

[1]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Model Comparisons and Model Selections Based on Generalization Criterion Methodology. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[2]  Jörg Rieskamp,et al.  Perspectives of probabilistic inferences: Reinforcement learning and an adaptive network compared. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[4]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Gain, cost, and event probability as determiners of choice behavior , 1964 .

[5]  C. Starmer.  Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk , 2000 .

[6]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Bayesian Methods in Cosmology: Model selection and multi-model inference , 2009 .

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

[8]  David Hinkley,et al.  Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 2008 .

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

[10]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[11]  Colin Camerer.  Individual Decision Making , 2020, The Handbook of Experimental Economics.

[12]  R. Luce,et al.  On the possible psychophysical laws. , 1959, Psychological review.

[13]  C. González-Vallejo.  Making trade-offs: a probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. , 2002, Psychological review.

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

[15]  Colin Camerer.  Does the Basketball Market Believe in the 'Hot Hand'? , 1989 .

[16]  R. Luce,et al.  Thurstone and Sensory Scaling : Then and Now , 2004 .

[17]  D. E. Bell.  Reply—Putting a Premium on Regret , 1985 .

[18]  B. Mellers,et al.  Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making. , 1992 .

[19]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order , 2007 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

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

[22]  A. K. Basu.  A Theory of Decision-Making , 1973, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare.

[23]  David H. Krantz,et al.  Rational distance functions for multidimensional scaling , 1967 .

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

[25]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[26]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence Generic Rank-dependent Utility Generic Analysis of Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence Birnbaum and Mcintosh Model: N , 2022 .

[27]  J. Quiggin.  A theory of anticipated utility , 1982 .

[28]  M. Machina.  Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty , 1989 .

[29]  J. Platt.  Strong Inference , 2007 .

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

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

[32]  Jörg Rieskamp,et al.  The mapping model: a cognitive theory of quantitative estimation. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[33]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

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

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

[36]  C. González-Vallejo,et al.  Quantifying persuasion effects on choice with the decision threshold of the stochastic choice model , 2006 .

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

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

[39]  Donald L. Rumelhart,et al.  Similarity between stimuli: An experimental test of the Luce and Restle choice models. , 1971 .

[40]  G M Becker,et al.  Probabilities of choices among very similar objects: an experiment to decide between two models. , 2007, Behavioral science.

[41]  I. Ritov,et al.  Decision Affect Theory: Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Risky Options , 1997 .

[42]  E. Rowland.  Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[43]  D. Parkinson,et al.  Bayesian Methods in Cosmology: Model selection and multi-model inference , 2009 .

[44]  C. I. Mosier.  I. Problems and Designs of Cross-Validation 1 , 1951 .

[45]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[46]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making. , 1988 .

[47]  P. Fishburn.  Transitive measurable utility , 1983 .

[48]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Building bridges between neural models and complex decision making behaviour , 2006, Neural Networks.

[49]  David E. Bell,et al.  Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty , 1982, Oper. Res..

[50]  C. González-Vallejo,et al.  Context effects: the proportional difference model and the reflection of preference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[51]  C. González-Vallejo,et al.  Effects of vague probabilities and of vague payoffs on preference: a model comparison analysis , 1996 .

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

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

[54]  Adele Diederich,et al.  Survey of decision field theory , 2002, Math. Soc. Sci..

[55]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Contingent gains and losses in a risk-taking situation , 1965 .

[56]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  An Experimental Measurement of Utility , 1951, Journal of Political Economy.

[57]  J. Platt.  Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. , 1964, Science.

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

[59]  L. Katz,et al.  EFFECTS OF DIFFERENTIAL MONETARY GAIN AND LOSS ON SEQUENTIAL TWO-CHOICE BEHAVIOR. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[60]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[61]  M. Lee.  Three case studies in the Bayesian analysis of cognitive models , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[62]  H. Akaike.  A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[63]  Peter Juslin,et al.  Go with the flow: How to master a nonlinear multiple-cue judgment task. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.