The Probabilistic Nature of Preferential Choice

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1446-1465

  Rieskamp, Jörg ^a,b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

cumulative prospect theory; decision field theory; expected utility theory; priority heuristic; probabilistic choice models

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DECISION THEORY; FEMALE; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; MOTIVATION; PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION THEORY; FEMALE; GAMBLING; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY LEARNING; RISK-TAKING;

EID: 56449086189     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0013646     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Albers W. Prominence theory as a tool to model boundedly rational decisions. In: Gigerenzer G., and Selten R. (Eds). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 297-317
2. Bell D.E. Regret in decision-making under uncertainty. Operations Research 30 (1982) 961-981
3. Bell D.E. Disappointment in decision-making under uncertainty. Operations Research 33 (1985) 1-27
4. Bergert F.B., and Nosofsky R.M. A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33 (2007) 107-129
5. Birnbaum M.H. A comparison of five models that predict violations of first-order stochastic dominance in risky decision making. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty 31 (2005) 263-287
6. Birnbaum M.H. Evaluation of the priority heuristic as a descriptive model of risky decision making: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review 115 (2008) 235-260
7. Birnbaum M.H., and Chavez A. Tests of theories of decision making: Violations of branch independence and distribution independence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71 (1997) 161-194
8. Birnbaum M.H., Patton J.N., and Lott M.K. Evidence against rank-dependent utility theories: Tests of cumulative independence, interval independence, stochastic dominance, and transitivity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 77 (1999) 44-83
9. Block H.D., and Marschak J. Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. In: Olkin I., Ghurye S., Hoeffding W., Madow W., and Mann H. (Eds). Contributions to probability and statistics (1960), Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA 90-132
10. Brandstätter E., Gigerenzer G., and Hertwig R. The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review 113 (2006) 409-432
11. Burnham K.P., and Anderson D.R. Model selection and multimodel inference (2002), Springer, New York
12. Busemeyer J.R. Importance of measurement theory, error theory, and experimental design for testing the significance of interactions. Psychological Bulletin 88 (1980) 237-244
13. Busemeyer J.R., and Townsend J.T. Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review 100 (1993) 432-459
14. Busemeyer J.R., and Wang Y.-M. Model comparisons and model selections based on generalization criterion methodology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44 (2000) 171-189
15. Camerer C.F. An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty 2 (1989) 61-104
16. Dieckmann A., and Rieskamp J. The influence of information redundancy on probabilistic inferences. Memory & Cognition 35 (2007) 1801-1813
17. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics 7 (1979) 1-26
18. Erev I., and Barron G. On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychological Review 112 (2005) 912-931
19. Erev, I., Roth, A., Slonim, R. L., & Barron, G. (2002). Combining a theoretical prediction with experimental evidence to yield a new prediction: An experimental design with a random sample of tasks. Unpublished manuscript.
20. Erev I., Wallsten T.S., and Budescu D.V. Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psychological Review 101 (1994) 519-527
21. Estes W.K., and Maddox W.T. Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12 (2005) 403-408
22. Falmagne J.C. Random conjoint measurement and loudness summation. Psychological Review 83 (1976) 65-79
23. Fishburn P.C. Transitive measurable utility. Journal of Economic Theory 31 (1983) 293-317
24. Forster M.R. Key concepts in model selection: Performance and generalizability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44 (2000) 205-231
25. Gaissmaier W., Schooler L.J., and Rieskamp J. Simple predictions fueled by capacity limitations: When are they successful?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32 (2006) 966-982
26. Gigerenzer G., and Goldstein D.G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103 (1996) 650-669
27. González-Vallejo C. Making trade-offs: A probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. Psychological Review 109 (2002) 137-155
28. Haider H., and Frensch P.A. Why aggregated learning follows the power law of practice when individual learning does not: Comment on Rickard (1997, 1999), Delaney et al. (1998), and Palmeri (1999). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28 (2002) 392-406
29. Hey J.D. Does repetition improve consistency?. Experimental Economics 4 (2001) 5-54
30. Johnson E.J., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., and Willemsen M.C. Process models deserve process data: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review 115 (2008) 263-273
31. Kahneman D., and Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (1979) 263-291
32. Lee M.D., and Cummins T.D.R. Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the "take the best" and the "rational" models. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11 (2004) 343-352
33. Leland J.W. Generalized similarity judgments: An alternative explanation for choice anomalies. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty 9 (1994) 151-172
34. Loomes G., and Sugden R. Regret theory-An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal 92 (1982) 805-824
35. Lopes L.L., and Oden G.C. The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 43 (1999) 286-313
36. Luce R.D. Individual choice behavior (1959), Wiley, Oxford
37. Luce R.D. The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (1977) 215-233
38. Luce R.D. Utility of gains and losses: Measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches (2000), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
39. Luce R.D., and Fishburn P.C. Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first order gambles. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty 4 (1991) 29-59
40. Luce R.D., and Fishburn P.C. A note on deriving rank-dependent utility using additive joint receipts. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty 11 (1995) 5-16
41. Luce R.D., and Suppes P. Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In: Luce R.D., Bush R.B., and Galanter E. (Eds). Handbook of mathematical psychology 3 (1965), Wiley, New York 249-410
42. Machina M.J. Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility-models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature 27 (1989) 1622-1668
43. Marley A.A.J. Random utility models and their applications: Recent developments. Mathematical Social Sciences 43 (2002) 289-302
44. Mata R., Schooler L.J., and Rieskamp J. The aging decision maker: Cognitive aging and the adaptive selection of decision strategies. Psychology & Aging 22 (2007) 796-810
45. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P. (Ed). Frontiers in econometrics (1974), Academic Press, New York 105-142
46. Mellers B.A. Choice and the relative pleasure of consequences. Psychological Bulletin 126 (2000) 910-924
47. Mellers B.A., and Biagini K. Similarity and choice. Psychological Review 101 (1994) 505-518
48. Mosteller F., and Nogee P. An experimental measurement of utility. Journal of Political Economy 59 (1951) 371-404
49. Myung I.J. The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44 (2000) 190-204
50. Myung I.J., and Pitt M.A. Applying Occam's razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4 (1997) 79-95
51. Nelder J.A., and Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal 7 (1965) 308-313
52. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., and Johnson E.J. Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14 (1988) 534-552
53. Pitt M.A., Myung I.J., and Zhang S. Toward a method of selecting among computational models of cognition. Psychological Review 109 (2002) 472-491
54. Quiggin J. A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3 (1982) 323-343
55. Quiggin J. Generalized expected utility theory: The rank-dependent model (1993), Kluwer, Boston
56. Rieger M.O., and Wang M. What is behind the priority heuristic? A mathematical analysis and comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review 115 (2008) 274-280
57. Rieskamp J. Perspectives of probabilistic inferences: A reinforcement and an adaptive network model compared. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32 (2006) 1355-1370
58. Rieskamp J. The importance of learning when making inferences. Judgment and Decision Making 3 (2008) 261-277
59. Rieskamp J., Busemeyer J.R., and Mellers B. Extending the bounds of rationality: A review of research on preferential choice. Journal of Economic Literature 44 (2006) 631-661
60. Rieskamp J., and Hoffrage U. Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica 127 (2008) 258-276
61. Rieskamp J., and Otto P.E. SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135 (2006) 207-236
62. Roberts S., and Pashler H. How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review 107 (2000) 358-367
63. Roe R.M., Busemeyer J.R., and Townsend J.T. Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review 108 (2001) 370-392
64. Rubinstein A. Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility-theory resolution to the Allais paradox?). Journal of Economic Theory 46 (1988) 145-153
65. Savage L.J. The foundations of statistics (1954), Wiley, New York
66. Sokal R.R., and Rohlf F.J. Biometry: The principles and practice of statistics in biological research (1994), Freeman, New York
67. Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 38 (2000) 332-382
68. Thorngate W. Efficient decision heuristics. Behavioral Science 25 (1980) 219-225
69. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34 (1927) 273-286
70. Thurstone L.L. The measurement of values (1959), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
71. Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review 79 (1972) 281-299
72. Tversky A., and Kahneman D. Advances in prospect-theory-Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty 5 (1992) 297-323
73. von Helversen B., and Rieskamp J. The mapping model: A cognitive theory of quantitative estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137 (2008) 73-96
74. von Neumann J., and Morgenstern O. Theory of games and economic behavior. 2nd ed. (1947), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
75. Wong R.S.K. Model selection-strategies and the use of association models to detect group-differences. Sociological Methods & Research 22 (1994) 460-491