Cognitive models of risky choice: Parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory

Glöckner, Andreas; Pachur, Thorsten

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.12.002

Cited by 156 publications

(207 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, we inspected the means of the posterior group-level distributions of the CPT parameters in the two experimental sessions (see Table 1). The values were consistent with the range of values obtained in previous studies (for an overview, see Fox & Poldrack, 2014 The magnitude of the correlations suggests that the individual parameter values were quite stable over time (see Glöckner & Pachur, 2012). Note: HDI = 95% highest density interval.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The research reported in this article originated when the first two authors discussed findings presented in Glöckner and Pachur (2012), which demonstrated temporal stability of individually estimated CPT parameters. The second author had previously worked extensively with process tracing, and the issue they discussed was to what extent CPT parameters might be related to measures of information search.…”

Section: Context Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The parameters + and -(both > 0) govern the elevation of the weighting function for gains and losses, respectively, and are often interpreted as indicating the degree of optimism or pessimism (e.g., Gonzalez & Wu, 1999). We estimated a single γ parameter across gains and losses (i.e., γ + = γ -), because probability sensitivity is typically found to be very similar across domains (Fox & Poldrack, 2014;Glöckner & Pachur, 2012;Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). In contrast, because, for instance, a high value on the elevation parameter implies opposite risk attitudes in the gain and loss domains (optimism To derive predicted choice probabilities from CPT, we used an exponential version of Luce's choice rule (also known as softmax or logit function), which defines the probability that a gamble A is chosen over a gamble B as:…”

Section: Experiments 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention.

Pachur¹,

Schulte‐Mecklenbeck²,

Murphy³

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

108

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Context Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Experiments 1 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention.

Pachur¹,

Schulte‐Mecklenbeck²,

Murphy³

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

108

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Willemsen, Böckenholt, & Johnson, 2011). Understanding the cognitive processes, however, is key for predicting and improving behavior (e.g., Payne & Venkatraman, 2011; see also Glöckner & Pachur, 2012;Pachur, Hanoch, & Gummerum, 2010). Toward the goal of developing a more process-oriented account of the endowment effect, it has been speculated that buyers and sellers focus their attention on different aspects of the target object (e.g., Carmon & Ariely, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing preference from experience: The endowment effect reflected in external information search.

Pachur

Scheibehenne

2012

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often attach a higher value to an object when they own it (i.e., as seller) compared with when they do not own it (i.e., as buyer)-a phenomenon known as the endowment effect. According to recent cognitive process accounts of the endowment effect, the effect is due to differences between sellers and buyers in information search. Whereas previous investigations have focused on search order and internal search processes (i.e., in memory), we used a sampling paradigm to examine differences in search termination in external search. We asked participants to indicate selling and buying prices for monetary lotteries in a within-subject design. In an experience condition, participants had to learn about the possible outcomes and probabilities of the lotteries by experiential sampling. As hypothesized, sellers tended to terminate search after sampling high outcomes, whereas buyers tended to terminate search after sampling low outcomes. These differences in stopping behavior translated into samples of the lotteries that were differentially distorted for sellers and buyers; the amount of the distortion was predictive of the resulting size of the endowment effect. In addition, for sellers search was more extended when high outcomes were rare compared with when low outcomes were rare. Our results add to the increasing evidence that the endowment effect is due, in part, to differences in predecisional information search.

show abstract

“…For instance, Yechiam and Busemeyer (2008) evaluated the stability of several learning models for repeated choice problems across different tasks. Also, Glöckner and Pachur (2012) examined parameter stability with respect to cumulative prospect theory across time (see also Scheibehenne & Pachur, 2015). These are just some examples of stability research, and many more could be listed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences in use of the recognition heuristic are stable across time, choice objects, domains, and presentation formats

Michalkiewicz

Erdfelder

2015

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recognition heuristic (RH) is a simple decision strategy that performs surprisingly well in many domains. According to the RH, people decide on the basis of recognition alone and ignore further knowledge when faced with a recognized and an unrecognized choice object. Previous research has revealed noteworthy individual differences in RH use, suggesting that people have preferences for using versus avoiding this strategy that might be causally linked to cognitive or personality traits. However, trying to explain differences in RH use in terms of traits presupposes temporal and cross-situational stability in use of the RH, an important prerequisite that has not been scrutinized so far. In a series of four experiments, we therefore assessed the stability in RH use across (1) time, (2) choice objects, (3) domains, and (4) presentation formats of the choice objects. In Experiment 1, participants worked on the same inference task and choice objects twice, separated by a delay of either one day or one week. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 using two different object sets from the same domain, whereas Experiment 3 assessed the stability of RH use across two different domains. Finally, in Experiment 4 we investigated stability across verbal and pictorial presentation formats of the choice objects. For all measures of RH use proposed so far, we found strong evidence for both temporal and cross-situational stability in use of the RH. Thus, RH use at least partly reflects a personspecific style of decision making whose determinants await further research.

show abstract

Cognitive models of risky choice: Parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory

Cited by 156 publications

References 59 publications

Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention.

Prospect theory reflects selective allocation of attention.

Constructing preference from experience: The endowment effect reflected in external information search.

Individual differences in use of the recognition heuristic are stable across time, choice objects, domains, and presentation formats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About