IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v38y2022i3p215-245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An elementary mechanism for simultaneously modeling discrete decisions and decision times

Author

Listed:
  • Jiangbo Yu

Abstract

In the field of system dynamics (SD), there has been a missing set of theoretically sound techniques for explicitly modeling dynamics during discrete decision‐making processes across varying levels and types of decision pressures. Purchasing a property, filing a divorce, approving a merger, imposing a tariff, and launching a war are examples of actions that have broader ramifications; in these cases, the decisions and timing of those decisions are crucial in understanding and predicting the interactions between the decision‐makers and their environments. Sequential Sampling Models (SSMs) have remained commonplace in cognitive psychology (CP) for decades because of their utility in simultaneously capturing individual decisions and decision‐time distributions. This article reviews existing SSM literature and proposes a generalized, elementary mechanism distilled from existing SSMs, which establishes a connection between SD and CP in the hope of benefiting both fields. © 2022 System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiangbo Yu, 2022. "An elementary mechanism for simultaneously modeling discrete decisions and decision times," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 215-245, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:38:y:2022:i:3:p:215-245
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1712
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1712
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1712?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Busemeyer, Jerome R. & Diederich, Adele, 2002. "Survey of decision field theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 345-370, July.
    3. David N. Ford, 2019. "A system dynamics glossary," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 35(4), pages 369-379, October.
    4. Richard M. Cyert & Herbert A. Simon & Donald B. Trow, 1956. "Observation of a Business Decision," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29, pages 237-237.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Busemeyer, Jerome R. & Townsend, James T., 1992. "Fundamental derivations from decision field theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 255-282, June.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    8. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    9. Huber, Joel & Payne, John W & Puto, Christopher, 1982. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 9(1), pages 90-98, June.
    10. S. Link & R. Heath, 1975. "A sequential theory of psychological discrimination," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 77-105, March.
    11. Saeed P. Langarudi & Carlos G. Silva & Alexander G. Fernald, 2021. "Measure more or report faster? Effect of information perception on management of commons," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(1), pages 72-92, January.
    12. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    13. Mervyn Stone, 1960. "Models for choice-reaction time," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 25(3), pages 251-260, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    2. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    3. Thomas Otter & Joe Johnson & Jörg Rieskamp & Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & Adele Diederich & J. Hutchinson & Steven MacEachern & Shiling Ruan & Jim Townsend, 2008. "Sequential sampling models of choice: Some recent advances," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 255-267, December.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:5:p:503-510 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Hammond, Peter J & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1033, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. George D. Farmer & Wael El-Deredy & Andrew Howes & Paul A. Warren, 2015. "The attraction effect in motor planning decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 503-510, September.
    7. Zhuo Chen & Russell Golman & Jason Somerville, 2024. "Menu-dependent risk attitudes: Theory and evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 77-105, February.
    8. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    9. Seidl, C. & Traub, S., 1996. "Rational Choice and the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives," Other publications TiSEM 26452450-9ecd-45b4-bc45-b, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Alistair Munro & Danail Popov, 2013. "A portmanteau experiment on the relevance of individual decision anomalies for households," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 335-348, September.
    11. Jonathan P. Beauchamp & Daniel J. Benjamin & Christopher F. Chabris & David I. Laibson, 2015. "Controlling for the Compromise Effect Debiases Estimates of Risk Preference Parameters," NBER Working Papers 21792, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Li, Feng & Du, Timon C. & Wei, Ying, 2020. "Enhancing supply chain decisions with consumers’ behavioral factors: An illustration of decoy effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    13. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    14. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    15. Katharina Dowling & Daniel Guhl & Daniel Klapper & Martin Spann & Lucas Stich & Narine Yegoryan, 2020. "Behavioral biases in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 449-477, May.
    16. Guevara, C. Angelo & Fukushi, Mitsuyoshi, 2016. "Modeling the decoy effect with context-RUM Models: Diagrammatic analysis and empirical evidence from route choice SP and mode choice RP case studies," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 93(PA), pages 318-337.
    17. Ryan Webb & Paul W. Glimcher & Kenway Louie, 2021. "The Normalization of Consumer Valuations: Context-Dependent Preferences from Neurobiological Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 93-125, January.
    18. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Mats Köster, 2020. "Salience and Skewness Preferences [Risk-neutral Firms can Extract Unbounded Profits from Consumers with Prospect Theory Preferences]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(5), pages 2057-2107.
    19. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    20. Bechler, Georg & Steinhardt, Claudius & Mackert, Jochen & Klein, Robert, 2021. "Product line optimization in the presence of preferences for compromise alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(3), pages 902-917.
    21. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:1:p:77-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Linhai Wu & Pingping Liu & Xiujuan Chen & Wuyang Hu & Xuesen Fan, 2021. "Contents of product attributes and the decoy effect: A study on traceable pork from the perspective of consumer utility," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 974-984, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:38:y:2022:i:3:p:215-245. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.