Optimal decision stimuli for risky choice experiments: An adaptive approach

Management Science

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 358-375

  Cavagnaro, Daniel R ^a   Gonzalez, Richard ^b   Myung, Jay I ^c   Pitt, Mark A ^c  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Choice under risk; Experimental design; Model discrimination

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE LEARNING; ADAPTIVE APPROACH; ADAPTIVE DESIGNS; ADAPTIVE SELECTION; CHOICE EXPERIMENTS; CUMULATIVE PROSPECT THEORY; EXPECTED UTILITY; EXPERIMENTAL TRIALS; METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS; MODEL DISCRIMINATION; OPTIMAL DECISIONS; PROSPECT THEORY; SIMULATION STUDIES;

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS; OPTIMIZATION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

EID: 84874166613     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1558     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abdellaoui M (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Management Sci. 46(11):1497-1512.
2. Aigner DJ (1979) A brief introduction to the methodology of optimal experimental design. J. Econometrics 11(1):7-26.
3. Allais M (1953) Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine. Econometrica2 J. Econometric Soc. 21(4):503-546.
4. Amzal B, Bois FY, Parent E, Robert CP (2006) Bayesian-optimal design via interacting particle systems. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 101(474):773-785. (Pubitemid 43972315)
5. Atkinson AC, Donev AN (1992) Optimum Experimental Designs (Claredon Press, Oxford, UK).
6. Atkinson AC, Federov VV (1975a) The design of experiments for discriminating between two rival models. Biometrika 62(1):57-70.
7. Atkinson AC, Federov VV (1975b) Optimal design: Experiments for discriminating between several models. Biometrika 62(2):289-303.
8. Becker G, DeGroot M, Marschak J (1963) Stochatic models of choice behavior. Behav. Sci. 8(1):41-55.
9. Binmore K, Shaked A (2007) Experimental economics: Science or what? Report, ESRC Centre for Economic Learning and Social Evolution, London.
10. Birnbaum MH (2005) A comparison of five models that predict violations of first-order stochastic dominance in risky decision making. J. Risk Uncertainty 31(3):263-287. (Pubitemid 41705561)
11. Birnbaum MH (2008) New paradoxes of risky decision making. Psych. Rev. 115(2):463-500.
12. Birnbaum MH, Gutierrez RJ (2007) Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 104(1):96-112.
13. Blavatskyy PR (2007) Stochastic expected utility. J. Risk Uncertainty 34(3):259-286.
14. Camerer CF (1989) An experimental test of several generalized utility theories. J. Risk Uncertainty 2(1):61-104.
15. Cavagnaro DR, Pitt MA, Myung JI (2011) Model discrimination through adaptive experimentation. Psychonomic Bulletin Rev. 18(1):204-210.
16. Cavagnaro DR, Myung JI, Pitt MA, Kujala JV (2010) Adaptive design optimization: A mutual information based approach to model discrimination in cognitive science. Neural Comput. 22(4):887-905.
17. Chaloner K, Verdinelli I (1995) Bayesian experimental design: A review. Statist. Sci. 10(3):273-304.
18. Chew SH (1983) A generalization of the quasilinear mean with applications to the measurement of income inequality and decision theory resolving the Allais paradox. Econometrica2 J. Econometric Soc. 51(4):1065-1092.
19. Chew SH, Waller WS (1986) Empirical tests of weighted utility theory. J. Math. Psych. 30(1):55-72.
20. Cohn D, Atlas L, Ladner R (1994) Improving generalization with active learning. Machine Learn. 15(2):201-221.
21. Cohn D, Ghahramani Z, Jordan MI (1996) Active learning with statistical models. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 4:129-145. (Pubitemid 126646151)
22. Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991) Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley & Sons, New York).
23. Deng X, Joseph VR, Sudjianto A, Wu CFJ (2009) Active learning through sequential design, with applications to detection of money laudering. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 104(487):969-981.
24. Ding M, Rosner GL, Müller P (2008) Bayesian optimal design for phase II screening trials. Biometrics 64(3):886-894.
25. Dzyabura D, Hauser JR (2011) Active machine learning for consideration heuristics. Marketing Sci. 30(5):801-819.
26. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quart. J. Econom. 75(4):643-669.
27. Fennema H, Wakker P (1997) Original and cumulative prospect theory: A discussion of empirical differences. J. Behav. Decision Making 10(1):53-64.
28. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2004) Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd ed. (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL).
29. Großmann H, Holling H, Schwabe R (2002) Advances in optimum experimental design for conjoint analysis and discrete choice models. Adv. Econometrics 16:93-117.
30. Haines LM, Perevozskaya I, Rosenberer WF (2003) Bayesian optimal designs for phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 59(3):591-600. (Pubitemid 37093398)
31. Harless DW, Camerer CF (1994) The predictive utility of generalized exected utility theories. Econometrica 62(6):1251-1289.
32. Hey JD (2005) Why we should not be silent about noise. Experiment. Econom. 8(4):325-345. (Pubitemid 41817827)
33. Hey JD, Orme C (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62(6):1291-1326.
34. Kaelbling LP, Littman ML, Cassandra AR (1998) Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence 101(1-2):99-134. (Pubitemid 128387390)
35. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. 47(2):263-291.
36. Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 90(430):773-795.
37. Kiefer J (1959) Optimum experimental designs. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Series B Meth. 21(2):272-319.
38. Kreutz C, Timmer J (2009) Systems biology: Experimental design. FEBS J. 276(4):923-942.
39. Kruschke JK (2008) Bayesian approaches to associative learning: From passive to active learning. Learn. Behav. 36(3):210.
40. Kuhfeld WF, Tobias RD, Garratt M (1994) Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Marketing Res. 31:545-557.
41. Kujala JV, Lukka TJ (2006) Bayesian adaptive estimation: The next dimension. J. Math. Psych. 50(4):369-389. (Pubitemid 43779132)
42. Leek MR (2001) Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Perception Psychophysics 63(8):1279.
43. Lesmes LA, Jeon S-T, Lu Z-L, Dosher BA (2006) Bayesian adaptive estimation of threshold versus contrast external noise functions: The quick TvC method. Vision Res. 46(19):3160-3176. (Pubitemid 44081799)
44. Lesmes LA, Lu Z-L, Baek J, Albright TD (2010) Bayesian adaptive estimation of the contrast sensitivity function: The quick CSF method. J. Vision 10(3):Article 17.
45. Lewi J, Butera R, Paninski L (2009) Sequential optimal design of neurophysiology experiments. Neural Comput. 21(3):619-687.
46. Lindley DV (1956) On a measure of the information provided by an experiment. Ann. Math. Statist. 27(4):986-1005.
47. Littman ML (2009) A tutorial on partially observable Markov decision process. J. Math. Psych. 53(3):119-125.
48. Loomes G, Sugden R (1995) Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. Eur. Econom. Rev. 39(3):641-648.
49. Loomes G, Moffatt PG, Sugden R (2002) A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. J. Risk Uncertainty 24(2):103-130. (Pubitemid 37131158)
50. Loredo TJ, Chernoff DF (2003) Bayesian adaptive exploration. Feigelson ED, Babu GJ, eds. Statistical Challenges in Astronomy (Springer-Verlag, New York), 57-70.
51. Machina M (1982) Expected utility theory without the independence axiom. Econometrica 50(2):277-323.
52. Marschak J (1950) Rational behavior, uncertain prospects, and measurable utility. Econometrica 18(2):111-141.
53. McClelland GH (1997) Optimal design in psychological research. Psych. Methods 2(1):3-19. (Pubitemid 127453668)
54. Müller P, Sanso B, De Iorio M (2004) Optimal Bayesian design by in homogeneous Markov chain simulation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 99(467):788-798. (Pubitemid 39332860)
55. Myung J (2000) The importance of complexity in model selection. J. Math. Psych. 44(1):190-204.
56. Myung J, Pitt MA (2009) Optimal experimental design for model discrimination. Psych. Rev. 116(3):499-518.
57. Netzer O, Srinivasan VS (2007) Adaptive self-explication of multiattribute preferences. Working paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford.
58. Robert CP, Casella G (2004) Monte Carlo Methods, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York).
59. Starmer C (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econom. Literature 38(2):332-382.
60. Steyvers M, Tenenbaum JB, Wagenmakers E-J, Blum B (2003) Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions. Cognitive Sci. 27(3):453-489. (Pubitemid 36598417)
61. Stott HP (2006) Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32:101-130. (Pubitemid 43742157)
62. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297-323.
63. Vermeulen B, Good P, Vandbroek M (2008) Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 25(2):94-103.
64. Wu G, Gonzalez R (1998) Common consequence conditions in decision making under risk. J. Risk Uncertainty 16(1):115-139.
65. Wu G, Zhang J, Abdellaoui M (2005) Testing prospect theories using probability tradeoff consistency. J. Risk Uncertainty 30(2):107-131. (Pubitemid 40579636)
66. Zhang S, Lee MD (2010) Optimal experimental design for a class of bandit problems. J. Math. Psych. 54(6):499-508.