Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Chapter 13 Sequential Decisions from Sampling:
- Chapter 14 Thurstonian Uncertainty in Self-Determined Judgment and Decision Making
- Chapter 15 The Information Cost–Benefit Trade-Off as a Sampling Problem in Information Search
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Chapter 13 - Sequential Decisions from Sampling:
Inductive Generation of Stopping Decisions Using Instance-Based Learning Theory
from Part IV - Truncation and Stopping Rules
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 June 2023
Book contents
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Historical Review of Sampling Perspectives and Major Paradigms
- Part II Sampling Mechanisms
- Part III Consequences of Selective Sampling
- Part IV Truncation and Stopping Rules
- Chapter 13 Sequential Decisions from Sampling:
- Chapter 14 Thurstonian Uncertainty in Self-Determined Judgment and Decision Making
- Chapter 15 The Information Cost–Benefit Trade-Off as a Sampling Problem in Information Search
- Part V Sampling as a Tool in Social Environments
- Part VI Computational Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
Sequential decisions from sampling are common in daily life: we often explore alternatives sequentially, decide when to stop such exploration process, and use the experience acquired during sampling to make a choice for what is expected to be the best option. In decisions from experience, theories of sampling and experiential choice are unable to explain the decision of when to stop the sequential exploration of alternatives. In this chapter, we propose a mechanism to inductively generate stopping decisions, and we demonstrate its plausibility in a large and diverse human data set of the binary choice sampling paradigm. Our proposed stopping mechanism relies on the choice process of a theory of experiential choice, Instance-Based Learning Theory (IBLT). The new stopping mechanism tracks the relative prediction errors of the two options during sampling, and stops when such difference is close to zero. Our results from simulation are able to accurately predict human stopping decisions distributions in the dataset. This model provides an integrated theoretical account of decisions from experience, where the stopping decisions are generated inductively from the sampling process.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making , pp. 289 - 310Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., & Byrne, M. D. et al. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumann, C., Singmann, H., Gershman, S. J., & von Helversen, B. (2020). A linear threshold model for optimal stopping behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(23), 12750–12755. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002312117CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic cognitive approach to decision making. Psychological Review, 100, 432–459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.432Google Scholar
Dutt, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2015). Accounting for outcome and process measures in dynamic decision-making tasks through model calibration. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. https://doi.org/10.11588/jddm.2015.1.17663Google Scholar
Erev, I., Ert, E., & Roth, A. E. et al. (2010). A choice prediction competition for choices from experience and from description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 15–47. https://doi:10.1002/bdm.683Google Scholar
Gonzalez, C. (2013). The boundaries of instance-based learning theory for explaining decisions from experience. In Chandrasekhar Pammi, V. S. & Srinivasan, N. (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 202, pp. 73–98). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-62604-2.00005-8Google Scholar
Gonzalez, C., Ben‐Asher, N., Martin, J. M., & Dutt, V. (2015). A cognitive model of dynamic cooperation with varied interdependency information. Cognitive Science, 39(3), 457–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12170Google Scholar
Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V. (2011). Instance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience. Psychological Review, 118(4), 523–551. https://doi:10.1037/a0024558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V. (2016). Exploration and exploitation during information search and consequential choice Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 2(2),1–8.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, C., Lerch, J. F., & Lebiere, C. (2003). Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. Cognitive Science, 27(4), 591–635. https://doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00031-4Google Scholar
Gonzalez, C., & Mehlhorn, K. (2016). Framing from experience: Cognitive processes and predictions of risky choice. Cognitive Science, 40(5), 1163–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guan, M., Stokes, R., Vandekerckhove, J., & Lee, M. D. (2020). A cognitive modeling analysis of risk in sequential choice tasks. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(5), 823–850. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/evzp9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., Kiefer, J., & Hertwig, R. (2008). The description–experience gap in risky choice: The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 493–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. (2015). Decisions from experience. The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making, 2, 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118468333.ch8Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539. https://doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.xGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description–experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(12), 517–523. https://doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004Google Scholar
Hertwig, R., & Pleskac, T. J. (2010). Decisions from experience: Why small samples? Cognition, 115, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebiere, C. (1999). A blending process for aggregate retrievals. In Proceedings of the 6th ACT-R Workshop. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University,Google Scholar
Lejarraga, T., Dutt, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). Instance‐based learning: A general model of repeated binary choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/e722992011-088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lejarraga, T., & Gonzalez, C. (2011). Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.001Google Scholar
Lejarraga, T., Hertwig, R., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition, 124(3), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.002Google Scholar
Lejarraga, T., Lejarraga, J., & Gonzalez, C. (2014). Decisions from experience: How groups and individuals adapt to change. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1384–1397. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0445-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markant, D., Pleskac, T. J., Diederich, A., Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2015). Modeling choice and search in decisions from experience: A sequential sampling approach. In 37th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1512–1517). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1957). A behavioral model of rational choice. Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting (pp. 241–269). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Srivastava, N., Müller-Trede, J., Schrater, P. R., & Vul, E. (2016). Modeling sampling duration in decisions from experience. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.Google Scholar
Wulff, D. U., Mergenthaler-Canseco, M., & Hertwig, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description–experience gap. Psychological bulletin, 144(2), 140. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed