Integrating cognitive process and descriptive models of attitudes and preferences

Cognitive Science

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 701-735

  Hawkins, Guy E ^a   Marley, A A J ^b,c   Heathcote, Andrew ^d   Flynn, Terry N ^c   Louviere, Jordan J ^c   Brown, Scott D ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Best worst scaling; Decision making; Evidence accumulation; Linear ballistic accumulator; Preference; Random utility model

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; REACTION TIME;

ATTITUDE; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REACTION TIME;

EID: 84901696652     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12094     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Batchelder, W. H. (2009). Cognitive psychometrics: Using multinomial processing tree models as measurement tools. In S. E. Embretson (Ed.), Measuring psychological constructs: Advances in model based measurement (pp. 71-93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.
2. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. J. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice reaction time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153-178.
3. Brown, S., 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.
4. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1992). Fundamental derivations from decision field theory. Mathematical Social Sciences, 23, 255-282.
5. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459.
6. Coast, J., Salisbury, C., de Berker, D., Noble, A., Horrocks, S., Peters, T. J., & Flynn, T. N. (2006). Preferences for aspects of a dermatology consultation. British Journal of Dermatology, 155, 387-392.
7. Collins, A. T., & Rose, J. M. (2011). Estimation of stochastic scale with best-worst data. Paper presented at the Second International Choice Modelling Conference, Leeds, UK.
8. Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2003). Simple matrix methods for analyzing diffusion models of choice probability, choice response time, and simple response time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 304-322.
9. Finn, A., & Louviere, J. J. (1992). Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11, 12-25.
10. Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2007). Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 171-189.
11. Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2008). Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using best-worst scaling: Comparison of various methods of analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(76), doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-76.
12. Flynn, T. N., Louviere, J. J., Peters, T. J., & Coast, J. (2010). Using discrete choice experiments to understand preferences for quality of life. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1957-1965.
13. Flynn, T. N., & Marley, A. A. J. (2013). Best-worst scaling: Theory and methods. In S. Hess & A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of choice modelling, Edward Elgar Publishing.
14. Forstmann, B. U., Dutilh, G., Brown, S., 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.
15. Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Johnson, J. G. (2011a). Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mouse-tracing methods. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 740-749.
16. Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Johnson, J. G. (2011b). Decision moving window: Using interactive eye tracking to examine decision processes. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 853-863.
17. Frank, M. J., Scheres, A., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). Understanding decision making deficits in neurological conditions: Insights from models of natural action selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 362, 1641-1654.
18. Gilchrist, W. (2000). Statistical modelling with quantile functions. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
19. Goodman, S. N. (2009). An international comparison of retail wine consumer choice. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21, 41-49.
20. Heathcote, A., & Love, J. (2012). Linear deterministic accumulator models of simple choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, n/a. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00292.
21. Ho, T., Brown, S., & Serences, J. (2009). Domain general mechanisms of perceptual decision making in human cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8675-8687.
22. Hsee, C. H., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 23-30.
23. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
24. Lee, J. A., Soutar, G. N., & Louviere, J. J. (2008). The best-worst scaling approach: An alternative to Schwartz's values survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 335-347.
25. Louviere, J. J., & Flynn, T. N. (2010). Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 3, 275-283.
26. Louviere, J. J., & Islam, T. (2008). A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. Journal of Business Research, 61, 903-911.
27. Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
28. Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Ludwig, C. J. H., Farrell, S., Ellis, L. A., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2009). The mechanism underlying inhibition of saccadic return. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 180-202.
30. van der Maas, H. L. J., Molenaar, D., Maris, G., Kievit, R. A., & Borsboom, D. (2011). Cognitive psychology meets psychometric theory: On the relation between process models for decision making and latent variable models for individual differences. Psychological Review, 118, 339-356.
31. Marley, A. A. J. (1989a). A random utility family that includes many of the "classical" models and has closed form choice probabilities and choice reaction times. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 13-36.
32. Marley, A. A. J. (1989b). Addendum to "A random utility family" British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 42, 280.
33. Marley, A. A. J., & Colonius, H. (1992). The "horse race" random utility model for choice probabilities and reaction times, and its competing risks interpretation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 1-20.
34. Marley, A. A. J., Flynn, T. N., & Louviere, J. J. (2008). Probabilistic models of set-dependent and attribute-level best-worst choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 281-296.
35. Marley, A. A. J., & Islam, T. (2012). Conceptual relations between expanded rank data and models of the unexpanded rank data. Journal of Choice Modelling, 5, 38-80.
36. Marley, A. A. J., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 464-480.
37. Marley, A. A. J., & Pihlens, D. (2012). Models of best-worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options (profiles). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 24-34.
38. McFadden, D. (1978). Modeling the choice of residential location. In A. Karlquist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, & J. Weibull (Eds.), Spatial interaction theory and planning models (pp. 75-96). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
39. Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2010). What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters, 21, 335-350.
40. Mueller Loose, S., & Lockshin, L. (2013). Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for cross-national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 230-242.
41. Otter, T., Allenby, G. M., & van Zandt, T. (2008). An integrated model of discrete choice and response time. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 593-607.
42. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43. R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria.
44. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108.
45. Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for two-choice decisions. Psychological Science, 9, 347-356.
46. Ratcliff, R., & Smith, P. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333-367.
47. Rieskamp, J., Busemeyer, J. R., & Mellers, B. A. (2006). Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. Journal of Economic Literature, 44, 631-661.
48. Roe, R. M., Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (2001). Multi-alternative decision field theory: A dynamic artificial neural network model of decision-making. Psychological Review, 108, 370-392.
49. Ruan, S., MacEachern, S. N., Otter, T., & Dean, A. M. (2008). The dependent Poisson race model and modeling dependence in conjoint choice experiments. Psychometrika, 73, 261-288.
50. Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. British Medical Journal, 320, 1530-1533.
51. Szeinbach, S. L., Barnes, J. H., McGhan, W. F., Murawski, M. M., & Corey, R. (1999). Using conjoint analysis to evaluate health state preferences. Drug Information Journal, 33, 849-858.
52. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
53. Trueblood, J. S., Brown, S. D., & Heathcote, A. (2013). The multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multi-alternative choice. Manuscript submitted for publication.
54. 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.
55. Usher, M., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychological Review, 111, 757-769.
56. Wollschläger, L. M., & Diederich, A. (2012). The 2N-ary choice tree model for N-alternative preferential choice. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00189.
57. van Zandt, T., Colonius, H., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). A comparison of two response time models applied to perceptual matching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 208-256.