Transitive in our preferences, but transitive in different ways: An analysis of choice variability

Decision

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 102-122

  Cavagnaro, Daniel R ^a   Davis Stober, Clintin P ^b  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian model selection; Linear ordering polytope; Preference reversal; Transitivity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84911904317     PISSN: 23259965     EISSN: 23259973     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/dec0000011     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Anand, P. (1993). The philosophy of intransitive preference. The Economic Journal, 103, 337-346
2. Ben Zur, H., & Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 89-104
3. Berkowitsch, N. A., Scheibehenne, B., & Rieskamp, J. (2013). Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication
4. Bernardo, J. (1996). The concept of exchangeability and its applications. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 4, 111-122
5. Birnbaum, M. H. (2011). Testing mixture models of transitive preference: Comments on Regenwetter, Dana, and Davis-Stober (2011). Psychological Review, 118, 675-683
6. Birnbaum, M. (2012). A statistical test of independence in choice data with small samples. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 97-109
7. Birnbaum, M. H., & Gutierrez, R. J. (2007). Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 96-112
8. Birnbaum, M. H., & Schmidt, U. (2008). An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 37, 77-91
9. Blei, D., Ng, A., & Jordan, M. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993-1022
10. Böckenholt, U., & Kroeger, K. (1993). The effect of time pressure in multiattribute binary choice tasks. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 195-214). New York, NY: Plenum Press
11. Busemeyer, J. (1985). Decision making under uncertainty: Simple scalability, fixed sample, and sequential sampling models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 538-564
12. Busemeyer, J., & Townsend, J. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100, 432-459
13. Cha, Y. S., Choi, M., Guo, Y., Regenwetter, M., & Zwilling, C. (2013). Reply: Birnbaum's (2012). statistical tests of independence have unknown type-I error rates and do not replicate within participant. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 55-73
14. Davidson, D., & Marschak, J. (1959). Experimental tests of a stochastic decision theory. Measurement: Definitions and theories, pp. 233-69
15. Davis-Stober, C. (2009). Analysis of multinomial models under inequality constraints: Applications to measurement theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 1-13
16. Davis-Stober, C. P. (2012). A lexicographic semiorder polytope and probabilistic representations of choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56, 86-94
17. Davis-Stober, C., & Brown, N. (2011). A shift in strategy or "error"? strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 800-813
18. Davis-Stober, C. P., Brown, N., & Cavagnaro, D. R. (2013). Evaluating decision makers' preferences via lexicographic semiorders. Retrieved from http://www.icmconference.org.uk/index.php/icmc/ICMC2013/paper/viewFile/674/199
19. Dennis, S., Lee, M. D., & Kinnell, A. (2008). Bayesian analysis of recognition memory: The case of the list-length effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 361-376
20. Fiorini, S. (2001). Determining the automorphism group of the linear ordering polytope. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 112, 121-128
21. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., & Rubin, D. (2004). Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
22. González-Vallejo, C. (2002). Making trade-offs: A probabilistic and context-sensitive model of choice behavior. Psychological Review, 109, 137-155
23. Grether, D., & Plott, C. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69, 623-638
24. Halff, H. (1976). Choice theories for differentially comparable alternatives. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 244-246
25. Hey, J. (2001). Does repetition improve consistency? Experimental Economics, 4, 5-54
26. Hey, J. (2005). Why we should not be silent about noise. Experimental Economics, 8, 325-345
27. Iverson, G., & Falmagne, J. (1985). Statistical issues in measurement. Mathematical Social Sciences, 10, 131-153
28. Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability, 3rd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
29. Karabatsos, G. (2006). Bayesian nonparametric model selection and model testing. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 123-148
30. Kass, R., & Raftery, A. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773-795
31. Klugkist, I., & Hoijtink, H. (2007). The Bayes factor for inequality and about equality constrained models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51, 6367-6379
32. Lee, M., & Wagenmakers, E. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
33. Lindley, D., & Phillips, L. (1976). Inference for a bernoulli process (a Bayesian view). The American Statistician, 30, 112-119
34. Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., & Sugden, R. (2002). A microeconometric test of alternative stochastic theories of risky choice. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 24, 103-130
35. Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39, 641-648
36. Luce, R. D. (1977). The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 215-233
37. Luce, R. (2000). Utility of gains and losses: Measurement-theoretical, and experimental approaches (Vol. 13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc
38. Mellers, B., & Biagini, K. (1994). Similarity and choice. Psychological Review; Psychological Review, 101, 505
39. Montgomery, H. (1977). A study of intransitive preferences using a think aloud procedure. In H. Jungerman & G. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Decision making and change in human affairs (pp. 347-362). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel
40. Myung, I. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 190-204
41. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (2002). Mathematical modeling. In H. W. Pashler & J. Wixted (Eds.), Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 4. Methodology in experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 429-460). New York: Wiley
42. Myung, J., Karabatsos, G., & Iverson, G. (2005). A Bayesian approach to testing decision making axioms. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 205-225
43. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 534-552
44. Ranyard, R. (1977). Risky decisions which violate transitivity and double cancellation. Acta Psychologica, 41, 449-459
45. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. (2010). Testing transitivity of preferences on twoalternative forced choice data. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 148
46. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118, 42-56
47. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., Davis-Stober, C. P., & Guo, Y. (2011). Parsimonious testing of transitive or intransitive preferences: Reply to Birnbaum (2011). Psychological Review, 118, 684-688
48. Rieskamp, J., Busemeyer, J., & Mellers, B. (2006). Extending the bounds of rationality: Evidence and theories of preferential choice. Journal of Economic Literature, 44, 631-661
49. Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell? In G. Gigerenzer & P. Todd (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart. Transitivity of preferences. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press
50. Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta Psychologica, 127, 258-276
51. Roe, R., Busemeyer, J., & Townsend, J. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 108, 370-392
52. Scheibehenne, B., Rieskamp, J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2013). Testing adaptive toolbox models: A Bayesian hierarchical approach. Psychological Review, 120, 39-64
53. Schmidt, U., & Stolpe, M. (2011). Transitivity in health utility measurement: An experimental analysis. Health Economics Review, 1, 1-4
54. Smith, J. B., & Batchelder, W. H. (2008). Assessing individual differences in categorical data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 713-731
55. Tsai, R., & Böckenholt, U. (2006). Modelling intransitive preferences: A random-effects approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 1-14
56. Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31-48
57. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281
58. Tversky, A., & Russo, J. R. (1969). Substitutability and similarity in binary choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 1-12
59. Vanpaemel, W. (2010). Prior sensitivity in theory testing: An apologia for the Bayes factor. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 491-498
60. Wagenmakers, E., Lodewyckx, T., Kuriyal, H., & Grasman, R. (2010). Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the savage-dickey method. Cognitive Psychology, 60, 158-189
61. Wilcox, N. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. Research in Experimental Economics, 12, 197-292