1 / 38

Testing Lexicographic Semi-Order Models: Generalizing the Priority Heuristic

Testing Lexicographic Semi-Order Models: Generalizing the Priority Heuristic. Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton. Outline. Priority Heuristic for risky decisions New Critical Tests: Allow each person to have a different LS with different parameters

baris
Download Presentation

Testing Lexicographic Semi-Order Models: Generalizing the Priority Heuristic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Testing Lexicographic Semi-Order Models: Generalizing the Priority Heuristic Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton

  2. Outline • Priority Heuristic for risky decisions • New Critical Tests: Allow each person to have a different LS with different parameters • Results for three tests: Interaction, Integration, and Transitivity. • Discussion and questions

  3. Priority Heuristic • Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, & Hertwig • Consider one dimension at a time. • If that “reason” is decisive, other reasons not considered. No integration; no interactions. • Very different from utility models. • Very similar to CPT.

  4. Priority Heuristic • Brandstätter, et al (2006) model assumes people do NOT weight or integrate information. • Each decision based on one dimension only. • Only 4 dimensions considered. • Order fixed: L, P(L), H, P(H).

  5. PH for 2-branch gambles • First: minimal gains. If the difference exceeds 1/10 the (rounded) maximal gain, choose by best minimal gain. • If minimal gains not decisive, consider probability; if difference exceeds 1/10, choose best probability. • Otherwise, choose gamble with the best highest consequence.

  6. Priority Heuristic examples

  7. Example: Allais Paradox

  8. PH Reproduces Some Data… Predicts 100% of modal choices in Kahneman & Tversky, 1979. Predicts 85% of choices in Erev, et al. (1992) Predicts 73% of Mellers, et al. (1992) data

  9. …But not all Data • Birnbaum & Navarrete (1998): 43% • Birnbaum (1999): 25% • Birnbaum (2004): 23% • Birnbaum & Gutierrez (in press): 30%

  10. Problems • No attention to middle branch, contrary to results in Birnbaum (1999) • Fails to predict stochastic dominance in cases where people satisfy it in Birnbaum (1999). Fails to predict violations when 70% violate stochastic dominance. • Not accurate when EVs differ. • No individual differences and no free parameters. Different data sets have different parameters. Delta > .12 & Delta < .04.

  11. Modifications: • People act as if they compute ratio of EV and choose higher EV when ratio > 2. • People act as if they can detect stochastic dominance. • Although these help, they do not improve model to more than 50% accuracy. • Today: Suppose different people have different LS with different parameters.

  12. Family of LS • In two-branch gambles, G = (x, p; y), there are three dimensions: L = lowest outcome (y), P = probability (p), and H = highest outcome (x). • There are 6 orders in which one might consider the dimensions: LPH, LHP, PLH, PHL, HPL, HLP. • In addition, there are two threshold parameters (for the first two dimensions).

  13. New Tests of Independence • Dimension Interaction: Decision should be independent of any dimension that has the same value in both alternatives. • Dimension Integration: indecisive differences cannot add up to be decisive. • Priority Dominance: if a difference is decisive, no effect of other dimensions.

  14. Taxonomy of choice models

  15. Testing Algebraic Models with Error-Filled Data • Models assume or imply formal properties such as interactive independence. • But these properties may not hold if data contain “error.” • Different people might have different “true” preference orders, and different items might produce different amounts of error.

  16. Error Model Assumptions • Each choice pattern in an experiment has a true probability, p, and each choice has an error rate, e. • The error rate is estimated from inconsistency of response to the same choice by same person over repetitions.

  17. Priority Heuristic Implies • Violations of Transitivity • Satisfies Interactive Independence: Decision cannot be altered by any dimension that is the same in both gambles. • No Dimension Integration: 4-choice property. • Priority Dominance. Decision based on dimension with priority cannot be overruled by changes on other dimensions. 6-choice.

  18. Dimension Interaction

  19. Family of LS • 6 Orders: LPH, LHP, PLH, PHL, HPL, HLP. • There are 3 ranges for each of two parameters, making 9 combinations of parameter ranges. • There are 6 X 9 = 54 LS models. • But all models predict SS, RR, or ??.

  20. Results: Interaction n = 153

  21. Analysis of Interaction • Estimated probabilities: • P(SS) = 0 (prior PH) • P(SR) = 0.75 (prior TAX) • P(RS) = 0 • P(RR) = 0.25 • Priority Heuristic: Predicts SS

  22. Probability Mixture Model • Suppose each person uses a LS on any trial, but randomly switches from one order to another and one set of parameters to another. • But any mixture of LS is a mix of SS, RR, and ??. So no LS mixture model explains SR or RS.

  23. Dimension Integration Study with Adam LaCroix • Difference produced by one dimension cannot be overcome by integrating nondecisive differences on 2 dimensions. • We can examine all six LS Rules for each experiment X 9 parameter combinations. • Each experiment manipulates 2 factors. • A 2 x 2 test yields a 4-choice property.

  24. Integration Resp. Patterns

  25. 54 LS Models • Predict SSSS, SRSR, SSRR, or RRRR. • TAX predicts SSSR—two improvements to R can combine to shift preference. • Mixture model of LS does not predict SSSR pattern.

  26. Choice Percentages

  27. Test of Dim. Integration • Data form a 16 X 16 array of response patterns to four choice problems with 2 replicates. • Data are partitioned into 16 patterns that are repeated in both replicates and frequency of each pattern in one or the other replicate but not both.

  28. Data Patterns (n = 260)

  29. Results: Dimension Integration • Data strongly violate independence property of LS family • Data are consistent instead with dimension integration. Two small, indecisive effects can combine to reverse preferences. • Replicated with all pairs of 2 dims.

  30. New Studies of Transitivity • LS models violate transitivity: A > B and B > C implies A > C. • Birnbaum & Gutierrez tested transitivity using Tversky’s gambles, but using typical methods for display of choices. • Also used pie displays with and without numerical information about probability. Similar results with both procedures.

  31. Replication of Tversky (‘69) with Roman Gutierez • Two studies used Tversky’s 5 gambles, formatted with tickets instead of pie charts. Two conditions used pies. • Exp 1, n = 251. • No pre-selection of participants. • Participants served in other studies, prior to testing (~1 hr).

  32. Three of Tversky’s (1969) Gambles • A = ($5.00, 0.29; $0, 0.79) • C = ($4.50, 0.38; $0, 0.62) • E = ($4.00, 0.46; $0, 0.54) Priority Heurisitc Predicts: A preferred to C; C preferred to E, But E preferred to A. Intransitive. TAX (prior): E > C > A

  33. Tests of WST (Exp 1)

  34. Response Combinations

  35. WST Can be Violated even when Everyone is Perfectly Transitive

  36. Results-ACE

  37. Comments • Results were surprisingly transitive, unlike Tversky’s data. • Differences: no pre-test, selection; • Probability represented by # of tickets (100 per urn); similar results with pies. • Participants have practice with variety of gambles, & choices; • Tested via Computer.

  38. Summary • Priority Heuristic model’s predicted violations of transitivity are rare. • Dimension Interaction violates any member of LS models including PH. • Dimension Integration violates any LS model including PH. • Data violate mixture model of LS. • Evidence of Interaction and Integration compatible with models like EU, CPT, TAX.

More Related