IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v80y2015i2p412-427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Viewpoint Shifts in Probabilistic Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Tomoya Okubo
  • Shin-ichi Mayekawa

Abstract

A number of mathematical models for overcoming intransitive choice have been proposed and tested in the literature of decision theory. This article presents the development of a new stochastic choice model based on multidimensional scaling. This allows decision-makers to have multiple viewpoints, whereas current multidimensional scaling models are based on the assumption that a subject or group of subjects has only one viewpoint. The implication of our model is that subjects make an intransitive choice because they are able to shift their viewpoint. This paper also presents the maximum likelihood estimation of the proposed model, and reanalyzes Tversky’s gamble experiment data. Copyright The Psychometric Society 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Tomoya Okubo & Shin-ichi Mayekawa, 2015. "Modeling Viewpoint Shifts in Probabilistic Choice," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 412-427, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:80:y:2015:i:2:p:412-427
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-013-9392-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11336-013-9392-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-013-9392-7?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. Loomes, Graham & Moffatt, Peter G & Sugden, Robert, 2002. "A Microeconometric Test of Alternative Stochastic Theories of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 103-130, March.
    2. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    3. repec:bla:econom:v:65:y:1998:i:260:p:581-98 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Selin Atalay, A. & Blanchard, Simon J., 2009. "A three-way clusterwise multidimensional unfolding procedure for the spatial representation of context dependent preferences," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 3217-3230, June.
    5. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Patton, Jamie N. & Lott, Melissa K., 1999. "Evidence against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 44-83, January.
    6. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    7. Geert Soete & Suzanne Winsberg, 1993. "A latent class vector model for preference ratings," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 10(2), pages 195-218, December.
    8. Budescu, David V. & Weiss, Wendy, 1987. "Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 184-202, April.
    9. Suzanne Winsberg & Geert De Soete, 2002. "A bootstrap procedure for mixture models: applied to multidimensional scaling latent class models," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 391-406, October.
    10. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. I. Böckenholt & W. Gaul, 1986. "Analysis of choice behaviour via probabilistic ideal point and vector models," Applied Stochastic Models and Data Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(4), pages 209-226.
    12. Wayne DeSarbo & Daniel Howard & Kamel Jedidi, 1991. "Multiclus: A new method for simultaneously performing multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 121-136, March.
    13. Leo Goodman, 1979. "On the estimation of parameters in latent structure analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(1), pages 123-128, March.
    14. Iverson, G. & Falmagne, J. -C., 1985. "Statistical issues in measurement," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 131-153, October.
    15. Joseph Bennett & William Hays, 1960. "Multidimensional unfolding: Determining the dimensionality of ranked preference data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 25(1), pages 27-43, March.
    16. Wayne DeSarbo & Jaewun Cho, 1989. "A stochastic multidimensional scaling vector threshold model for the spatial representation of “pick any/n” data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 105-129, March.
    17. Geert Soete & Willem Heiser, 1993. "A latent class unfolding model for analyzing single stimulus preference ratings," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 58(4), pages 545-565, December.
    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. Clintin P. Davis-Stober & Nicholas Brown, 2011. "A shift in strategy or "error"? Strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 800-813, December.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:800-813 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    4. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Gutierrez, Roman J., 2007. "Testing for intransitivity of preferences predicted by a lexicographic semi-order," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 96-112, September.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo, 2015. "A Tailor-Made Test of Intransitive Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(1), pages 198-211, February.
    6. Amélie Vrijdags, 2010. "An experimental investigation of transitivity in set ranking," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 213-232, February.
    7. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    8. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2009. "Learning from mistakes: What do inconsistent choices over risk tell us?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 143-158, April.
    9. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    10. Schmidt, Ulrich & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2003. "An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Errors for Explaining Violations of Expected Utility," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-279, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    11. DeSarbo, Wayne S. & Selin Atalay, A. & Blanchard, Simon J., 2009. "A three-way clusterwise multidimensional unfolding procedure for the spatial representation of context dependent preferences," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(8), pages 3217-3230, June.
    12. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    13. John D. Hey, 2018. "Why We Should Not Be Silent About Noise," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 13, pages 309-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    14. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    15. Daniel R. Cavagnaro & Richard Gonzalez & Jay I. Myung & Mark A. Pitt, 2013. "Optimal Decision Stimuli for Risky Choice Experiments: An Adaptive Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 358-375, February.
    16. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    17. Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Daniel Navarro-Martínez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2011. "The stochastic component in choice and regression to the mean," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 251-267, August.
    18. Jinkwon Lee, 2008. "The effect of the background risk in a simple chance improving decision model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-41, February.
    19. Graham Loomes, 2005. "Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 301-323, December.
    20. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    21. 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.

    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:spr:psycho:v:80:y:2015:i:2:p:412-427. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.