Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for...
-
Upload
fabiola-yandell -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for...
![Page 1: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models
Jörg RieskampCenter for Economic PsychologyUniversity of Basel, Switzerland
4/16/2012 Warwick
![Page 2: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Decision Making Under Risk
French mathematicians (1654)
• Rational Decision Making: Principles of Expected Value
Blaise Pascal Pierre Fermat
![Page 3: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Decision Making Under Risk
• St. Petersburg Paradox• Expected utility theory (1738):
Replacing the value of money by its subjective value
Nicholas Bernoulli Daniel Bernoulli
![Page 4: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Expected Utility Theory
• Axiomatic expected utility theory von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947
![Page 5: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Frederick Mosteller 1916 - 2006
![Page 6: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
the authors argued that when first offering a bet with a certain probability of winning, and then increasing that probability
"there is not a sudden jump from no acceptances to all acceptances at a particular offer, just as in a hearing experiment there is not a critical loudness below which nothing is heard and above which all loudnesses are heard”
instead“the bet is taken occasionally, then more and more often, until, finally, the bet is taken nearly all the time”
Mosteller & Nogee, 1951, Journal of Political Economy, p. 374
Probabilistic Nature of Preferential Choice
![Page 7: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
– experiment conducted over 10 weeks with 3 sessions each weak
– participants repeatedly accepted or rejected gambles (N=30)
Example- the participants had to accept or reject a simple
binary gamble with a probability of 2/3 to loose 5 cents and a probability of 1/3 to win a particular amount
- the winning amount varied between 5 and 16 cents
Mosteller’s & Nogee’s Study
![Page 8: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Results: „Subject B-I"
![Page 9: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
– Participants decided between 180 pairs of gambles– Receiving 15 Euros as a show-up fee– One gamble was selected and played at the end of the
experiment and the winning amounts were paid to the subjects
Rieskamp (2008). JEP: LMC
Experimental Study
![Page 10: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Task
![Page 11: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
EV(Option1)
EV
(Opt
ion2
)
Expected values of the selected gambles
![Page 12: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Results: Expected values – Choice proportions
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 400
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Expected value option 2 - Expected value option 1
Cho
ice
prop
ortio
n op
tion
2
![Page 13: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Consumer products
How Can We Explain the Probabilistic Character of Choice?
![Page 14: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
• Random utility theories:
identically and independently extreme value distributedi
Explaining Probabilistic Character of Choice
Logit model
BA
A
VV
V
ee
eBuAupBAAp
)]()([}),{|(
iijMj ji xAu 1)(
ij
M
j jA xV 1
![Page 15: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• Random utility theories:
identically and independently normal distributed i
Probit Model
)]()([}),{|( BuAupBAAp
iijMj ji xAu 1)(
![Page 16: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Cognitive Approach to Decision Making
• Considering the information processing steps leading to a decision
• Sequential sampling models
- Vickers, 1970; Ratcliff, 1978- Busemeyer & Townsend, 1993
- Usher & McClelland, 2004
![Page 17: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Sequential Sampling Models
• People evaluate options by continuously sampling information about the options’ attributes
• Which attribute receives the attention of the decision maker fluctuates
• The probability that an attribute receives the attention of the decision maker is a function of the attribute‘s importance
• When the overall evaluation crosses a decision threshold a decision is made
Rieskamp, Busemeyer, & Mellers (2006) Journal of Economic Literature
![Page 18: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
(adapted from Busemeyer & Johnson, 2004)
Threshold Bound (internally controlled stopping-rule)
Dynamic Development of Preference
(adapted from Busemeyer & Johnson, 2004)
![Page 19: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Dynamic Development of Preference
(adapted from Busemeyer & Johnson, 2004)
Time Limit (externally controlled stopping-rule)
![Page 20: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Decision Making Under Risk
- DFT vs. Cumulative Prospect TheoryRieskamp (2008),
JEP:LMC
- DFT vs. Proportional Difference ModelScheibehenne, Rieskamp, & Gonzalez-Vallejo, 2009,
Cognitive Science
- Hierarchical Bayesian approach examining the limitations of cumulative prospect theory
Nilsson, Rieskamp, & Wagenmakers (2011), JMP
![Page 21: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Consumer Behavior
How good are sequential sampling models to predict consumer behavior?
- Multi-attribute decision field theory Roe, Busemeyer, & Townsend, 2001
versus
- Logit and Probit ModelStandard random utility models
![Page 22: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Multi-attribute Decision Field Theory
Decay• The preference state decays over time
Interrelated evaluations of options• Options are compared with each other• Similar alternatives compete against each other and have
a negative influence on each other
![Page 23: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
1. Calibration Experiment – Participants (N=30) repeatedly decided between three
digital cameras (72 choices)– Each camera was described by five attributes with two
or three attribute values (e.g. mega pixel, monitor size)– Models` parameters were estimated following a
maximum likelihood approach
2. Generalization Test Experiment
Study 1
![Page 24: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Task
![Page 25: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Models’ parameters
Models Parameters
Standard Random Utilit
y
Logit
Weights given to the attributes
extreme value
distributed
Probit
Weights given to the attributes
normal distribute
d
Sequential
Sampling
MDFT
Attention weights
allocated to the
attributes
normal distribute
d
Determines the rate at
which similarity
declines with distance
Determines the memory
of the previous
preference state
![Page 26: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Logit – Probit: r = .99
MDFT - Logit : r = .94
MDFT - Probit: r = .94
Attribute Weigths
![Page 27: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Model Comparison Results: Likelihood
-5 0 5 10
MDF
T v
s.
Log
it
MDF
T v
s.
Pro
bit
Logit
v
s.
Pro
bit
LL Diff ModelsLikelihood Differences
![Page 28: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Results: Bayes Factor
MDFT vs. Logit
log(BF) participant
Fre
quen
cy
-10 -5 0 5
02
46
810
MDFT vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
quen
cy
-10 -5 0 5
02
46
810
Logit vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
quen
cy
-10 -5 0 5
02
46
810
![Page 29: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Generalization Test Experiment 2– Generating a new set of options on the basis
of the estimated parameter values of experiment 1
– Comparing models‘ predictions without fitting
Study 1 – Generalization
![Page 30: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
– Comparing the observed choice proportions with the predicted choice proportions
Distance
Results
Model DistanceLog
LikelihoodBaseline 0.19 -702Logit 0.18 -863Probit 0.11 -468MDFT 0.12 -490
![Page 31: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Conclusion
• Calibration Design:– LL: MDFT >Logit >Probit– Bayes factor: Logit > Probit >
MDFT
• Generalization Design:– Probit ≈ MDFT > Logit
![Page 32: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Decision Field Theory - Interrelated evaluations of options1. attention specific evaluations2. competition between similar
options
Logit / Probit - Evaluation of options are independent of each other
Study 2: Qualitative PredictionsInterrelated Evaluations of Options
![Page 33: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 34: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
BS
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Similarity EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
![Page 35: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
BS
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Similarity EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
Tversky, 1972
![Page 36: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 37: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 38: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
A
B
D
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Attraction EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
![Page 39: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Interrelated evaluation of options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
A
B
D
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Attraction EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
(Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982)
![Page 40: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
A
B
C
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Compromise EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
![Page 41: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
C
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Compromise EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
![Page 42: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
• Is it possible to show the interrelated evaluations of options for all three situations in a within-subject design?
• Does MDFT has a substantial advantage compared to the logit and probit model in predicting people’s decisions?
Do the choice effects really matter?
Research Question
![Page 43: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Method: Matching Task
Matching Task TARGET COMPETITOR
A B
Weight
6.5 Kg 8.0 Kg
Price
??? 3'000 CHF Break
Before the main study participants had to choose one attribute value to make both options equally attractive
![Page 44: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Method: Matching Task
Matching Task TARGET COMPETITOR
A B
Weight
6.5 Kg 8.0 Kg
Price
4'000 CHF (matched)
3'000 CHF Break
![Page 45: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Main Study
Choice Task Matching Task TARGET COMPETITOR DECOY
A B C
Weight
6.5 Kg 8.0 Kg
6.6 Kg
Price
4'000 CHF (matched)
3'000 CHF Break
4'100 CHF Break
Choice Task: To the former 2 options (target + competitor) individual specified decoys were added.
Always choices between three options.
![Page 46: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
• The decoy was added either in relationship to option A or in relationship to option B
Pecularity: Decoy position
![Page 47: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 48: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 49: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 50: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
• If the third option had no effect on the preferences for A and B the average choice proportion for the target option should be 50%
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CHF
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
![Page 51: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Consumer Products: - bicycles- washing machines
- notebooks- vacuum cleaners- color printers- digital cameras
Choices: 6 products, 3 effects, 3 situations, 2 decoy positions
6 × 3 × 3 × 2 = 108 choice situations (triples)
Main Study
![Page 52: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Results
Attraction Compromise Similiarity0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
59%
48%
38%37%33% 33%
4%
19%
28%
Overall Subjects (N = 48)
TARGETCOMPETITORDECOY
![Page 53: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Results
A
B
Decoy
Target
Attraction Effect
![Page 54: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Results
A
B
Decoy
A
B
Decoy
TargetTarget
Attraction Effect Compromise Effect
![Page 55: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Results
A
B
Decoy
A
B
Decoy
A
B
Decoy
TargetTarget
Attraction Effect Compromise Effect
Target
Similarity Effect
![Page 56: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Logit – Probit: r = .72
MDFT - Logit: r = .57
MDFT - Probit: r = .61
Attribute Weigths
![Page 57: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Results
MDFT vs. Logit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
MDFT vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
Logit vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
![Page 58: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Results
MDFT vs. Logit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
MDFT vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
Logit vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
![Page 59: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Results
MDFT vs. Logit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
MDFT vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
Logit vs. Probit
log(BF) participant
Fre
qu
en
cy
0 5 10 15 20
02
46
810
![Page 60: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
• Sequential sampling models provide a way to describe the probabilistic character of choices
• For random choices situations Probit and MDFT are doing equally good for predicting people’s preferences
• In situations in which the interrelated evaluations of options play a major role MDFT has a substantial advantage compared to standard random utility models
Conclusions
![Page 61: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Thanks !
Nicolas Berkowitsch
MaximilianMatthaeus
Benjamin Scheibehenne
![Page 62: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
![Page 63: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Interrelated Evaluation of Options
A
B
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Target Competitor Decoy
A
B
D
1500
2500
3500
4500
550046810
Pric
e in
CH
F
Weight in Kg
Attraction EffectsTarget Competitor Decoy
(Huber, Payne, & Puto, 1982)
![Page 64: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
EV(Option1)
EV
(Opt
ion2
)
Expected values of the selected gambles
![Page 65: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Results: Expected values – Choice proportions
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 400
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Expected value option 2 - Expected value option 1
Cho
ice
prop
ortio
n op
tion
2
![Page 66: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
- Each models’ parameters were estimated separately for each individual.
- Goodness-of-fit: Maximum likelihood
Estimating the models’ parameter(s)
![Page 67: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
DFT predicted Prob Option 1
Ob
se
rve
d c
ho
ice
pro
po
rtio
ns
Op
tio
n 1
Results: Sequential Sampling Model
r = .83
![Page 68: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
CPT predicted Probability Option 1
Ob
se
rve
d c
ho
ice
pro
po
rtio
ns
Op
tio
n 1
Results: Cumulative Prospect Theory
r = .88
![Page 69: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
- For 18 participants prospect theory had a better AIC value as compared to 12 participants for whom DFT was the better model (p = .36 sign test)
- When fitting the models to the data there is a slight advantage of prospect theory in describing the data
- No strong evidence in favor of one model
Results
![Page 70: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
CPT predicted Probability Option 1
DF
T p
red
icte
d P
rob
ab
ility
Op
tio
n 1
CPT - DFT
r = .88
![Page 71: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
• A good fit of a model does not tell us very much!
• Both cumulative prospect theory and the sequential sampling model are able to described the observed choices
Conclusions
![Page 72: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
• Goal: Conducting a study to test the models rigorously against each other
• Generalization Test: Constructing decision problems for which the two models made different predictions
Study 2: Rigorous Model Comparison Test
![Page 73: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
• Generating 10.000 pairs of gambles• for each pair of gambles an experiment was simulated
with 30 synthetic participants• for each synthetic participant DFT‘s (or CPT‘s)
parameter values were drawn with replacement from the distribution of parameter values of study 1 and the model‘s predictions were determined
• each simulated experiment was repeated 100 times• the average choice probabilities were determined for
DFT and CPT• Selecting 180 gambles with different predictions of the
two models.
• Independent Test of DFT and CPT in Study 2
Bootstrapping Method
![Page 74: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
– Thirty participants decided between 180 pairs of gambles
– One gamble was selected and played at the end of the experiment and the winning amounts were paid to the participants
Study 2: Experiment
![Page 75: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Expected Values of Selected Gambles
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
EV Option 1
EV
Op
tio
n 2
![Page 76: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
DFT predicted probability Option 1
CP
T p
red
icte
d p
rob
ab
ility
Op
tio
n 1
Predictions: CPT - DFT
r = -.87
![Page 77: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 500
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
EV Option 2 - EV Option 1
Ch
oic
e p
rop
ort
ion
op
tio
n 2
Results: Expected values – Choice proportions
r = .71
![Page 78: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
DFT predicted probability Option 1
Ch
oic
e p
rop
ort
ion
Op
tio
n 1
Results: Sequential Sampling Model
r = .77
![Page 79: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
CPT predicted probability Option 1
Ch
oic
e p
rop
ort
ion
Op
tio
n 1
Results: Cumulative Prospect Theory
r = -.67
![Page 80: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Results Study 2
• For all 30 participants DFT reached a better goodness-of-fit than CPT
• The most likely gambles predicted by DFT were chosen in 66% of all cases, whereas the most likely gambles predicted by CPT were chosen in only 34% of all cases
![Page 81: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Limitations
- The results depend on the estimation process for CPT‘s parameters in Study 1
- With six free parameters fitting the parameters individually might not lead to reliable estimates
![Page 82: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
Hierarchical Bayesian Approach
- Estimating the posterior distribution of prospect theories‘ parameter
Hierarchical Bayesian Approach: - The median estimates of the maximum likelihood approach did not differ for most parameters of CPT
Nilsson, Rieskamp, & Wagenmakers (in press). Journal of Mathematical Psychology
![Page 83: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
Hierarchical Bayesian Approach
![Page 84: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
Hierarchical Bayesian Approach
- Estimating the posterior distribution of prospect theories‘ parameter
Hierarchical Bayesian Approach: However, it is in general difficult to receive reliable estimates for the loss aversion parameter of CPT
Nilsson, Rieskamp, & Wagenmakers (in press). Journal of Mathematical Psychology
![Page 85: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Alternative models
- Heuristic model of decision making - the priority heuristic
Rieskamp (2008), JEP:LMC
- Proportional difference model Scheibehenne, Rieskamp, & Gonzalez-Vallejo,
2009, Cognitive Science
![Page 86: Comparing Sequential Sampling Models With Standard Random Utility Models Jörg Rieskamp Center for Economic Psychology University of Basel, Switzerland.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062511/551b19ad550346f70d8b6381/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
Conclusions
- Sequential sampling models appear as valid alternatives to the the conventional expected utility and nonexpected utility approach such as CPT for explaining decision making under risk
- Sequential sampling models provide a description of the cognitive process underlying decision making