The Probabilistic Nature of Preferential Choice

被引:149
作者
Rieskamp, Joerg [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basel, Dept Psychol, CH-4055 Basel, Switzerland
[2] Max Planck Inst Human Dev, Ctr Adapt Behav & Cognit, Berlin, Germany
关键词
expected utility theory; cumulative prospect theory; priority heuristic; decision field theory; probabilistic choice models;
D O I
10.1037/a0013646
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Previous research has developed a variety of theories explaining when and why people's decisions under risk deviate from the standard economic view of expected utility maximization. These theories are limited in their predictive accuracy in that they do not explain the probabilistic nature of preferential choice, that is, why an individual makes different choices in nearly identical situations, or why the magnitude of these inconsistencies varies in different situations. To illustrate the advantage of probabilistic theories, three probabilistic theories of decision making under risk are compared with their deterministic counterparts. The probabilistic theories are (a) a probabilistic version of a simple choice heuristic, (b) a probabilistic version of cumulative prospect theory, and (c) decision field theory. By testing the theories with the data from three experimental studies, the superiority of the probabilistic models over their deterministic counterparts in predicting people's decisions under risk become evident. When testing the probabilistic theories against each other, decision field theory provides the best account of the observed behavior.
引用
收藏
页码:1446 / 1465
页数:20
相关论文
共 74 条
[1]  
Albers W, 2001, DAHL WS ENV, P297
[2]   DISAPPOINTMENT IN DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY [J].
BELL, DE .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1985, 33 (01) :1-27
[3]   REGRET IN DECISION-MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY [J].
BELL, DE .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1982, 30 (05) :961-981
[4]   A response-time approach to comparing generalized rational and take-the-best models of decision making [J].
Bergert, F. Bryan ;
Nosofsky, Robert M. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2007, 33 (01) :107-129
[5]   A comparison of five models that predict violations of first-order stochastic dominance in risky decision making [J].
Birnbaum, MH .
JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY, 2005, 31 (03) :263-287
[6]   Tests of theories of decision making: Violations of branch independence and distribution independence [J].
Birnbaum, MH ;
Chavez, A .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1997, 71 (02) :161-194
[7]   Evidence against rank-dependent utility theories: Tests of cumulative independence, interval independence, stochastic dominance, and transitivity [J].
Birnbaum, MH ;
Patton, JN ;
Lott, MK .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1999, 77 (01) :44-83
[8]   Postscript: Rejoinder to Brandstatter et al. (2008) [J].
Birnbaum, Michael .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2008, 115 (01) :260-262
[9]  
BLOCK HD, 1960, CONTRIBUTIONS PROBAB, P90
[10]   The priority heuristic:: Making choices without trade-offs [J].
Brandstätter, E ;
Gigerenzer, G ;
Hertwig, R .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2006, 113 (02) :409-432