The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice

Psychological Review

Volumn 121, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 179-205

  Trueblood, Jennifer S ^a   Brown, Scott D ^b   Heathcote, Andrew ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Context effects; Decision making; Dynamic models; Multialternative choice; Preference reversal

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; INTUITION; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SHORT TERM MEMORY; VISION;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; INTUITION; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 84898621452     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0036137     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Ashby, F. G. (2000). A stochastic version of general recognition theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 310-329. doi:10.1006/jmps.1998.1249
2. Berkowitsch, N. A. J., Scheibehenne, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0035159
3. Bhatia, S. (2013). Associations and the accumulation of preference. Psychological Review, 120, 522-543. doi:10.1037/a0032457
4. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2005). A ballistic model of choice response time. Psychological Review, 112, 117-128. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.117
5. Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.002
6. Brown, S. D., Marley, A. A. J., Donkin, C.,&Heathcote, A. (2008).An integrated model of choices and response times in absolute identification. Psychological Review, 115, 396-425. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.396
7. Busemeyer, J. R., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). Computational models of decision making. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 133-154). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470752937.ch7
8. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1992). Fundamental derivations from decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 23, 255-282. doi:10.1016/0165-4896(92)90043-5
9. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognition approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432
10. Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Y.-M. (2000). Model comparisons and model selections based on generalization criterion methodology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 171-189. doi:10.1006/jmps.1999.1282
11. Chernev, A. (2004). Extremeness aversion and attribute-balance effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 249-263. doi:10.1086/422105
12. Choplin, J. M., & Hummel, J. E. (2005). Comparison-induced decoy effects. Memory & Cognition, 33, 332-343. doi:10.3758/BF03195321
13. Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2000). Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 189-200. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP0904_1
14. Diederich, A. (1997). Dynamic stochastic models for decision making under time constraints. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 260-274. doi:10.1006/jmps.1997.1167
15. Donkin, C., Brown, S., Heathcote, A. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Diffusion versus linear ballistic accumulation: Different models for response time, same conclusions about psychological mechanisms? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 55, 140-151. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0022-4
16. Doyle, J. R., O'Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in-store purchases. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 225-243. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199905)16:3<225::AIDMAR3>3.0.CO;2-X
17. Forstmann, B. U., Anwander, A., Schäfer, A., Neumann, J., Brown, S., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Turner, R. (2010). Cortico-striatal connections predict control over speed and accuracy in perceptual decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 15916-15920. doi:10.1073/pnas.1004932107
18. Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S. D., Neumann, J., von Cramon, D. Y., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2008). Striatum and pre-SMA facilitate decision-making under time pressure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 17538-17542. doi:10.1073/pnas.0805903105
19. Frank, M. J. (2005). Dynamic dopamine modulation in the basal ganglia: A neurocomputational account of cognitive deficits in medicated and non-medicated parkinsonism. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 51-72. doi:10.1162/0898929052880093
20. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 215-228.
21. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2012). Decisions beyond boundaries: When more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychologica, 139, 532-542. doi:10.1162/0898929052880093
22. Gould, J. D. (1967). Pattern recognition and eye-movement parameters. Perception & Psychophysics, 2, 399-407. doi:10.3758/BF03208776
23. Gould, J. D. (1973). Eye movements during visual search and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 184-195. doi:10.1037/h0034280
24. Hausman, J. A., & Wise, D. A. (1978). A conditional probit model for quantitative choice: Discrete decisions recognizing interdependence and heterogeneous preferences. Econometrica, 46, 403-426. doi:10.2307/1913909
25. Hawkins, G. E., Marley, A. A. J., Heathcote, A., Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Integrating cognitive process and descriptive models of attitudes and preferences. Cognitive Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/cogs.12094
26. Highhouse, S. (1996). Context-dependent selection: The effects of decoy and phantom job candidates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 68-76. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0006
27. Holmberg, L., & Holmberg, I. (1969). The perception of the area of rectangles as a function of the ratio between height and width. Psychological Research Bulletin, 9, 1-6.
28. Holyoak, K. J., & Simon, D. (1999). Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 3-31. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.1.3
29. Hooge, I. T. C., & Erkelens, C. J. (1998). Adjustment of fixation duration in visual search. Vision Research, 38, 1295-1302. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00287-3
30. Hotaling, J. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Li, J. (2010). Theoretical developments in decision field theory: A comment on Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater (2010). Psychological Review, 117, 1294-1298. doi:10.1037/a0020401
31. 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. doi:10.1086/208899
32. Jacobs, A. M. (1986). Eye-movement control in visual search: How direct is visual span control? Perception & Psychophysics, 39, 47-58. doi: 10.3758/BF03207583
33. Jacobs, A. M., & O'Regan, J. K. (1987). Spatial and/or temporal adjustments of scanning behavior to visibility changes. Acta Psychologica, 65, 133-146. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(87)90023-0
34. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: Wiley.
35. Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 107-118. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107
36. Krajbich, I., & Rangel, A. (2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in valuebased decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 13852-13857. doi:10.1073/pnas .1101328108
37. Krantz, D. H. (1964). The scaling of small and large color differences(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 65-5777)
38. Link, S. W. (1992). The wave theory of difference and similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
40. Maylor, E. A., & Roberts, M. A. J. (2007). Similarity and attraction effects in episodic memory judgments. Cognition, 105, 715-723. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.002
41. McFadden, D. (1980). Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. Journal of Business, 53, S13-S29. doi:10.1086/296093
42. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
43. Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 94 -140. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(91)90004-8
44. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). Comparing exemplar-retrieval and decision-bound models of speeded perceptual classification. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1027-1048. doi:10.3758/BF03205518
45. O'Reilly, R. C., & Frank, M. J. (2006). Making working memory work: A computational model of learning in the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia. Neural Computation, 18, 283-328. doi:10.1162/089976606775093909
46. Pan, Y., O'Curry, S., & Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85-101. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_04
47. Pettibone, J. C. (2012). Testing the effect of time pressure on asymmetric dominance and compromise decoys in choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 513-523.
48. Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2000). Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 300-328. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2880
49. Pettibone, J. C., & Wedell, D. H. (2007). Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 323-341. doi:10.1002/bdm.557
50. Pleskac, T. J., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Two-stage dynamic signal detection: A theory of choice, decision time, and choice. Psychological Review, 117, 864-901. doi:10.1037/a0019737
51. Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: Evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 103-122. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1301_9
52. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
53. Ratcliff, R. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 195-237. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.002
54. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370-392. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370
55. Sedikides, C., Ariely, D., & Olsen, N. (1999). Contextual and procedural determinants of partner selection: Of asymmetric dominance and prominence. Social Cognition, 17, 118-139. doi:10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.118
56. Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323. doi:10.1126/science.3629243
57. Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331-336. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00678.x
58. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174. doi: 10.1086/209205
59. Smith, P. L. (1995). Psychophysically principled models of visual simple reaction time. Psychological Review, 102, 567-593. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.567
60. Soltani, A., De Martino, B., & Camerer, C. (2012). A range-normalization model of context-dependent choice: A new model and evidence. PLoS Computational Biology, 8, e1002607. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002607
61. Townsend, J. T., & Wenger, M. (2004). A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review, 111, 1003-1035. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1003
62. Trueblood, J. S. (2012). Multi-alternative context effects obtained using an inference task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 962-968. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0288-9
63. Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D., Heathcote, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). Not just for consumers: Context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psychological Science, 24, 901-908. doi:10.1177/0956797612464241
64. Tsetsos, K., Chater, N., & Usher, M. (2012). Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 9659-9664. doi:10.1073/pnas.1119569109
65. Tsetsos, K., Usher, M., & Chater, N. (2010). Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psychological Review, 117, 1275-1291. doi:10.1037/a0020580
66. Tsetsos, K., Usher, M., & McClelland, J. (2011). Testing multi-alternative decision models with non-stationary evidence. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 5, 63. doi:10.3389/fnins.2011.00063
67. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281-299. doi:10.1037/h0032955
68. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
69. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061. doi:10.2307/2937956
70. Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context dependent preferences. Management Science, 39, 1179-1189. doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179
71. Usher, M., Elhalal, A., & McClelland, J. L. (2008). The neurodynamics of choice, value-based decisions, and preference reversal. In N. Chater & M. Oaksford (Eds.), The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (pp. 277-300). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216093.003.0013
72. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757-769. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.757
73. Vickers, D. B. J., Smith, P., & Brown, M. (1985). Experimental paradigms emphasizing state or process limitations: I. effects of speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Acta Psychologica, 59, 129 -161. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(85)90017-4
74. Wedell, D. H. (1991). Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 767-778. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.767
75. Wedell, D. H., & Pettibone, J. C. (1996). Using judgments to understand decoy effects in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 326-344. doi:10.1006/obhd.1996.0083
76. Windschitl, P. D., & Chambers, J. R. (2004). The dud-alternative effect in likelihood judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 198 -215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.198
77. Wollschläger, L. M., & Diederich, A. (2012). The 2N-ary choice tree model for N-alternative preferential choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 189. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00189