Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice

Psychological Review

Volumn 111, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 757-769

  Usher, Marius ^a   McClelland, James L ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CENTER FOR THE NEURAL BASIS OF COGNITION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MOTIVATION; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REVIEW;

ATTENTION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTIVATION; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS;

EID: 3042857556     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.757     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Busemeyer, J. R., & Diederich, A. (2002). Survey of decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 43, 345-370.
2. Busemeyer, J. R., & Johnson, J. G. (in press). Computational models of decision making. In D. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
3. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.
4. Debreu, G. (1960). Review of R. D. Luce: Individual choice behavior. American Economic Review, 50, 186-188.
5. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 189-200.
6. Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 260-274.
7. Diederich, A. (2003). Multi-attribute decision field theory account of decision making under time pressure. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 10, 157-166.
8. Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1999). Conflict and the stochastic dominance principle of decision making. Psychological Science, 10, 353-359.
9. Grossberg, S. (1988). Neural networks and natural intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Huber, J., Payne, J. W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90-98.
11. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss-aversion and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193-206.
12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk, Econometrica, XLVII, 263-291.
13. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values and frames. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Knetsch, J. L. (1989). The endowment effect and evidence of nonreversible indifference curves. American Economic Review, 79, 1277-1284.
16. Knetsch, J. L., & Sinden, J. A (1984). Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: Experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of values. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99, 507-521.
17. Marley, A. A. J. (1989), Random utility family that includes many "classical" models and has closed form choice probabilities and choice reaction times. British Journal of Psychology, 42, 13-36.
18. McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
19. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of contexts effect in letter perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1-44.
20. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.
21. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decisionmaking. Psychological Review, 108, 370-392.
22. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinten, G. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). A general framework for parallel distributed processes. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDF Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 45-77). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDF Research Group (Eds.), (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Samuelson, W., & Zekhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
25. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
26. Sjoberg, L. (1977). Choice, frames and similarity. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 103-115.
27. Townsend, J. T., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1995). Dynamic representation of decision-making. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion (pp. 101-120). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299.
29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, 1039-1061.
30. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189.
31. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550-592.
32. Usher, M., & Niebur, E. (1996). Modeling the temporal dynamics of IT neurons in visual search: A mechanism for top-down selective attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 311-327.
33. Usher, M., & Zakay, D. (1993). A neural network model for attribute based decisions processes. Cognitive Science, 17, 349-396.