当前位置: X-MOL 学术Cogn. Psychol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Modeling choice paradoxes under risk: From prospect theories to sampling-based accounts
Cognitive Psychology ( IF 2.6 ) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.101258
David Kellen 1 , Markus D Steiner 2 , Clintin P Davis-Stober 3 , Nicholas R Pappas 1
Affiliation  

Important developments in the study of decision making have been based on the establishment and testing of choice paradoxes (e.g., Allais') that reject different theories (e.g., Expected Utility Theory). One of the most popular and celebrated models in the literature, Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), has managed to retain its status despite a growing body of empirical evidence stemming from a collection of choice paradoxes that reject it. Two alternative models, Transfer of Attention Exchange (TAX) and an extension of Decision Field Theory (DFTe), have been proposed as possible alternatives to CPT. To date, no study has directly compared these three models within the context of a large set of lottery problems that tests different choice paradoxes. The present study accomplishes this by using a large and diverse set of lottery problems, involving both potential gains and losses. Our results support the presence and robustness of a set of 'strong' choice paradoxes that reject CPT irrespective of its parametric form. Model comparison results show that DFTe provides the best account for the present set of lottery problems, as it is able to accommodate the choice data at large in a parsimonious fashion. The success of DFTe shows that many behavioral phenomena, including paradoxes that CPT cannot account for, can be successfully captured by a simple noisy-sampling process. Overall, our results suggest that researchers should move away from CPT, and focus their efforts on alternative models such as DFTe.

中文翻译:

风险下的选择悖论建模:从前景理论到基于抽样的账户

决策研究的重要发展基于拒绝不同理论(例如,预期效用理论)的选择悖论(例如,阿莱)的建立和检验。文献中最受欢迎和最著名的模型之一,累积前景理论 (CPT),尽管有越来越多的经验证据来自一系列拒绝它的选择悖论,但它仍然设法保持其地位。已经提出了两种替代模型,即注意力交换转移 (TAX) 和决策场理论的扩展 (DFTe),作为 CPT 的可能替代方案。迄今为止,还没有研究在测试不同选择悖论的大量彩票问题的背景下直接比较这三种模型。本研究通过使用大量不同的彩票问题来实现这一点,涉及潜在的收益和损失。我们的结果支持一组“强”选择悖论的存在和稳健性,这些悖论拒绝 CPT,而不管其参数形式如何。模型比较结果表明,DFTe 为当前的一组彩票问题提供了最好的解释,因为它能够以简约的方式容纳大量的选择数据。DFTe 的成功表明,许多行为现象,包括 CPT 无法解释的悖论,都可以通过简单的噪声采样过程成功捕获。总体而言,我们的结果表明,研究人员应该远离 CPT,而将精力集中在替代模型上,例如 DFTe。拒绝 CPT 而不管其参数形式如何的选择悖论。模型比较结果表明,DFTe 为当前的一组彩票问题提供了最好的解释,因为它能够以简约的方式容纳大量的选择数据。DFTe 的成功表明,许多行为现象,包括 CPT 无法解释的悖论,都可以通过简单的噪声采样过程成功捕获。总体而言,我们的结果表明,研究人员应该远离 CPT,而将精力集中在替代模型上,例如 DFTe。拒绝 CPT 而不管其参数形式如何的选择悖论。模型比较结果表明,DFTe 为当前的一组彩票问题提供了最好的解释,因为它能够以简约的方式容纳大量的选择数据。DFTe 的成功表明,许多行为现象,包括 CPT 无法解释的悖论,都可以通过简单的噪声采样过程成功捕获。总体而言,我们的结果表明,研究人员应该远离 CPT,而将精力集中在替代模型上,例如 DFTe。包括 CPT 无法解释的悖论,可以通过简单的噪声采样过程成功捕获。总体而言,我们的结果表明,研究人员应该远离 CPT,而将精力集中在替代模型上,例如 DFTe。包括 CPT 无法解释的悖论,可以通过简单的噪声采样过程成功捕获。总体而言,我们的结果表明,研究人员应该远离 CPT,而将精力集中在替代模型上,例如 DFTe。
更新日期:2020-05-01
down
wechat
bug