IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eejocm/v48y2023ics1755534523000192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to ask twenty questions and win: Machine learning tools for assessing preferences from small samples of willingness-to-pay prices

Author

Listed:
  • Sokratous, Konstantina
  • Fitch, Anderson K.
  • Kvam, Peter D.

Abstract

Subjective value has long been measured using binary choice experiments, yet responses like willingness-to-pay prices can be an effective and efficient way to assess individual differences risk preferences and value. Tony Marley’s work illustrated that dynamic, stochastic models permit meaningful inferences about cognition from process-level data on paradigms beyond binary choice, yet many of these models remain difficult to use because their likelihoods must be approximated from simulation. In this paper, we develop and test an approach that uses deep neural networks to estimate the parameters of otherwise-intractable behavioral models. Once trained, these networks allow for accurate and instantaneous parameter estimation. We compare different network architectures and show that they accurately recover true risk preferences related to utility, response caution, anchoring, and non-decision processes. To illustrate the usefulness of the approach, it was then applied to estimate model parameters for a large, demographically representative sample of U.S. participants who completed a 20-question pricing task — an estimation task that is not feasible with previous methods. The results illustrate the utility of machine-learning approaches for fitting cognitive and economic models, providing efficient methods for quantifying meaningful differences in risk preferences from sparse data.

Suggested Citation

  • Sokratous, Konstantina & Fitch, Anderson K. & Kvam, Peter D., 2023. "How to ask twenty questions and win: Machine learning tools for assessing preferences from small samples of willingness-to-pay prices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:48:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534523000192
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100418?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    3. 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..
    4. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    5. Haim Levy, 1992. "Stochastic Dominance and Expected Utility: Survey and Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(4), pages 555-593, April.
    6. Takaaki Kato & Noboru Hidano, 2007. "Anchoring Effects, Survey Conditions, and Respondents' Characteristics: Contingent Valuation of Uncertain Environmental Changes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 773-792, 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. Hela Maafi, 2011. "Preference Reversals Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(11), pages 2054-2066, November.
    2. Alarie, Y. & Dionne, G., 2001. "Optimal Cognitive Processes for Lotteries," Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales de Montreal- 01-02, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales de Montreal-Chaire de gestion des risques..
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2005. "Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 621-634, October.
    5. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.
    6. Alarie, Yves & Dionne, Georges, 2005. "Testing explanations of preference reversal: A model," Working Papers 05-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    7. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Brian Tomlin & Yimin Wang, 2005. "On the Value of Mix Flexibility and Dual Sourcing in Unreliable Newsvendor Networks," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 37-57, June.
    9. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    10. Catarina Roseta‐Palma & Yiğit Sağlam, 2019. "Downside risk in reservoir management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 328-353, April.
    11. Stephen L. Cheung, 2020. "Eliciting utility curvature in time preference," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 493-525, June.
    12. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2021. "Incoherent Preferences," CRETA Online Discussion Paper Series 69, Centre for Research in Economic Theory and its Applications CRETA.
    13. Haven, Emmanuel & Khrennikova, Polina, 2018. "A quantum-probabilistic paradigm: Non-consequential reasoning and state dependence in investment choice," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 186-197.
    14. Yoram Amiel & Frank Cowell & Liema Davidovitz & Avraham Polovin, 2008. "Preference reversals and the analysis of income distributions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 305-330, February.
    15. Ding, David K. & Charoenwong, Charlie & Seetoh, Raymond, 2004. "Prospect theory, analyst forecasts, and stock returns," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(4-5), pages 425-442.
    16. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    17. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Cycling with Rules of Thumb: An Experimental Test for a new form of Non-Transitive Behaviour," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-157, April.
    18. Roth, Gerrit, 2006. "Predicting the Gap between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Munich Dissertations in Economics 4901, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    19. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    20. 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.
    21. Adam Krzemienowski, 2009. "Risk preference modeling with conditional average: an application to portfolio optimization," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 67-95, January.

    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:eee:eejocm:v:48:y:2023:i:c:s1755534523000192. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-choice-modelling .

    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.