Testing Transitivity (and other Properties) Using a True and Error Model Michael H. Birnbaum.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

“Students” t-test.

Advertisements

Paradoxes in Decision Making With a Solution. Lottery 1 $3000 S1 $4000 $0 80% 20% R1 80%20%

New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making that Refute Prospect Theories Michael H. Birnbaum Fullerton, California, USA.

Regret & decision making What is regret? It’s –a negative emotion –Stems from a comparison of outcomes there is a choice that we did not take. had we decided.

Among those who cycle most have no regrets Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center, Fullerton.

Science of JDM as an Efficient Game of Mastermind Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton Bonn, July 26, 2013.

This Pump Sucks: Testing Transitivity with Individual Data Michael H. Birnbaum and Jeffrey P. Bahra California State University, Fullerton.

1 Upper Cumulative Independence Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Components of Source Credibility Michael H. Birnbaum Fullerton, California, USA.

1 Lower Distribution Independence Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

True and Error Models of Response Variation in Judgment and Decision Tasks Michael H. Birnbaum.

Evaluating Non-EU Models Michael H. Birnbaum Fullerton, California, USA.

Who are these People Who Violate Stochastic Dominance, Anyway? What, if anything, are they thinking? Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Assumption of normality

Certainty Equivalent and Stochastic Preferences June 2006 FUR 2006, Rome Pavlo Blavatskyy Wolfgang Köhler IEW, University of Zürich.

Decision making and economics. Economic theories Economic theories provide normative standards Expected value Expected utility Specialized branches like.

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

Testing Heuristic Models of Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

1 A Brief History of Descriptive Theories of Decision Making Kiel, June 9, 2005 Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Some New Approaches to Old Problems: Behavioral Models of Preference Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

1 Distribution Independence Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

QR 38, 2/13/07 Rationality and Expected Utility I. Rationality II. Expected utility III. Sets and probabilities.

Decision-making II choosing between gambles neural basis of decision-making.

Hypothesis Testing Steps of a Statistical Significance Test. 1. Assumptions Type of data, form of population, method of sampling, sample size.

Testing Models of Stochastic Dominance Violations Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University, Fullerton.

1 Upper Distribution Independence Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Ten “New Paradoxes” Refute Cumulative Prospect Theory of Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University,

Violations of Stochastic Dominance Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Testing Critical Properties of Models of Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum Fullerton, California, USA Sept. 13, 2007 Luxembourg.

Ten “New Paradoxes” Refute Cumulative Prospect Theory of Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University,

New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making that Refute Prospect Theories Michael H. Birnbaum Fullerton, California, USA.

1 The Case Against Prospect Theories of Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Web-Based Program of Research on Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Web-Based Program of Research on Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

1 A Brief History of Descriptive Theories of Decision Making: Lecture 2: SWU and PT Kiel, June 10, 2005 Michael H. Birnbaum California State University,

1 Gain-Loss Separability and Reflection In memory of Ward Edwards Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

I’m not overweight It just needs redistribution Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

1 Ten “New Paradoxes” of Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University, Fullerton.

1 Gain-Loss Separability Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Is there Some Format in Which CPT Violations are Attenuated? Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University, Fullerton.

1 Lower Cumulative Independence Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Sample Size Determination In the Context of Hypothesis Testing

Stochastic Dominance Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University, Fullerton.

Web-Based Program of Research on Risky Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Testing Transitivity with Individual Data Michael H. Birnbaum and Jeffrey P. Bahra California State University, Fullerton.

1 Restricted Branch Independence Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Presidential Address: A Program of Web-Based Research on Decision Making Michael H. Birnbaum SCiP, St. Louis, MO November 18, 2010.

Tests of significance & hypothesis testing Dr. Omar Al Jadaan Assistant Professor – Computer Science & Mathematics.

Behavior in the loss domain : an experiment using the probability trade-off consistency condition Olivier L’Haridon GRID, ESTP-ENSAM.

Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses WILLIAM T. HARBAUGH University of Oregon KATE KRAUSE University.

Decision making Making decisions Optimal decisions Violations of rationality.

1 Psych 5500/6500 t Test for Two Independent Means Fall, 2008.

Sequential Expected Utility Theory: Sequential Sampling in Economic Decision Making under Risk Andrea Isoni Andrea Isoni (Warwick) Graham Loomes Graham.

Stochastic choice under risk Pavlo Blavatskyy June 24, 2006.

A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory Pavlo R. Blavatskyy June 2007.

Ellsberg’s paradoxes: Problems for rank- dependent utility explanations Cherng-Horng Lan & Nigel Harvey Department of Psychology University College London.

Testing Transitivity with a True and Error Model Michael H. Birnbaum California State University, Fullerton.

Decision theory under uncertainty

Axiomatic Theory of Probabilistic Decision Making under Risk Pavlo R. Blavatskyy University of Zurich April 21st, 2007.

Allais Paradox, Ellsberg Paradox, and the Common Consequence Principle Then: Introduction to Prospect Theory Psychology 466: Judgment & Decision Making.

Handout Six: Sample Size, Effect Size, Power, and Assumptions of ANOVA EPSE 592 Experimental Designs and Analysis in Educational Research Instructor: Dr.

Can a Dominatrix Make My Pump Work? Michael H. Birnbaum CSUF Decision Research Center.

1 BAMS 517 – 2011 Decision Analysis -IV Utility Failures and Prospect Theory Martin L. Puterman UBC Sauder School of Business Winter Term

Tests of Significance We use test to determine whether a “prediction” is “true” or “false”. More precisely, a test of significance gets at the question.

2-1 Basic Assumptions Objective: To use number properties to simplify expressions.

Simplify Radical Expressions Using Properties of Radicals

Ascertaining certain certainties in choices under uncertainty

Ch10 Analysis of Variance.

New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making that Refute Prospect Theories

Presentation transcript:

Testing Transitivity (and other Properties) Using a True and Error Model Michael H. Birnbaum

Testing Algebraic Models with Error-Filled Data Algebraic models assume or imply formal properties such as stochastic dominance, coalescing, transitivity, gain-loss separability, etc. But these properties will not hold if data contain “error.”

Some Proposed Solutions Neo-Bayesian approach (Myung, Karabatsos, & Iverson. Cognitive process approach (Busemeyer) “Error” Theory (“Error Story”) approach (Thurstone, Luce) combined with algebraic models.

Variations of Error Models Thurstone, Luce: errors related to separation between subjective values. Case V: SST (scalability). Harless & Camerer: errors assumed to be equal for certain choices. Today: Allow each choice to have a different rate of error. Advantage: we desire error theory that is both descriptive and neutral.

Basic Assumptions Each choice in an experiment has a true choice probability, p, and an error rate, e. The error rate is estimated from (and is the “reason” given for) inconsistency of response to the same choice by same person over repetitions

One Choice, Two Repetitions AB A B

Solution for e The proportion of preference reversals between repetitions allows an estimate of e. Both off-diagonal entries should be equal, and are equal to:

Estimating e

Estimating p

Testing if p = 0

Ex: Stochastic Dominance 122 Undergrads: 59% repeated viols (BB) 28% Preference Reversals (AB or BA) Estimates: e = 0.19; p = Experts: 35% repeated violations 31% Reversals Estimates: e = 0.196; p = 0.50 Chi-Squared test reject H0: p < 0.4

Testing 3-Choice Properties Extending this model to properties using 2, 3, or 4 choices is straightforward. Allow a different error rate on each choice. Allow a true probability for each choice pattern.

Response Combinations Notation(A, B)(B, C)(C, A) 000ABC* 001ABA 010ACC 011ACA 100BBC 101BBA 110BCC 111BCA*

Weak Stochastic Transitivity

WST Can be Violated even when Everyone is Perfectly Transitive

Model for Transitivity A similar expression is written for the other seven probabilities. These can in turn be expanded to predict the probabilities of showing each pattern repeatedly.

Starmer (1999) data A = ($15, 0.2; $0, 0.8) B = ($8; 0.3; $0, 0.7) C = ($8, 0.15; $7.75; 0.15; $0,.7) Starmer predicted intransitivity from Prospect Theory and the dominance detection (editing) mechanism.

Starmer (Best) Data ObservedTransIntrans DataFitted (5)Fitted (6)

Transitive Solution to Starmer Data Full model is underdetermined. One error Fixed to zero; but other errors not equal. Most people recognized dominance.

Expand and Simplify There are 8 X 8 data patterns in an experiment with 2 repetitions. However, most of these have very small probabilities. Examine probabilities of each of 8 repeated patterns. Probability of showing each of 8 patterns in one replicate OR the other, but NOT both. Mutually exclusive, exhaustive partition.

New Studies of Transitivity Work currently under way testing transitivity under same conditions as used in tests of other decision properties. Participants view choices via the WWW, click button beside the gamble they would prefer to play.

Some Recipes being Tested Tversky’s (1969) 5 gambles. LS: Preds of Priority Heuristic Starmer’s recipe Additive Difference Model Birnbaum, Patton, & Lott (1999) recipe.

Tversky Gambles Some Sample Data, using Tversky’s 5 gambles, but formatted with tickets instead of pie charts. Data as of May 5, 2005, n = 123. No pre-selection of participants. Participants served in other studies, prior to testing (~1 hr).

Three of the 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)

Results-ACE patternRep 1Rep 2Both sum

Test of WST

Comments Preliminary results were surprisingly transitive. Difference: no pre-test, selection Probability represented by # of tickets (100 per urn) Participants have practice with variety of gambles, & choices. Tested via Computer

Test of Gain-Loss Separability Same Structure as Transitivity Property implied by CPT, RSDU Property violated by TAX. Loss Aversion: people do not like fair bets to win or lose. CPT: Loss Aversion due to utility function for gains and losses.

Gain-Loss Separability

Notation

Birnbaum & Bahra--% F

Birnbaum & Bahra R 1R 2bothOR!-“true”

Summary GLS Wu & Markle (2004) found evidence of violation of GLS. Modified CPT. Birnbaum & Bahra (2005) also find evidence of violation of GLS, violations of modified CPT as well. TAX: In mixed gambles, losses get greater weight. Data do not require kink in the utility function at zero.

Summary True & Error model with different error rates seems a reasonable “null” hypothesis for testing transitivity and other properties. Requires data with replications so that we can use each person’s self-agreement or reversals to estimate whether response patterns are “real” or due to “error.”