Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice.

The roles of loss aversion and inhibition among alternatives are examined in models of the similarity, compromise, and attraction effects that arise in choices among 3 alternatives differing on 2 attributes. R. M. Roe, J. R. Busemeyer, and J. T. Townsend (2001) have proposed a linear model in which effects previously attributed to loss aversion (A. Tversky & D. Kahneman, 1991) arise from attention switching between attributes and similarity-dependent inhibitory interactions among alternatives. However, there are several reasons to maintain loss aversion in a theory of choice. In view of this, an alternative theory is proposed, integrating loss aversion and attention switching into a nonlinear model (M. Usher & J. L. McClelland, 2001) that relies on inhibition independent of similarity among alternatives. The model accounts for the 3 effects and makes testable predictions contrasting with those of the Roe et al. (2001) model.

[1]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[2]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Choice frequency and similarity , 1977 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory. An Analysis of Decision Making Under Risk , 1977 .

[4]  Roger Ratcliff,et al.  A Theory of Memory Retrieval. , 1978 .

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[6]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[7]  J. Payne,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[8]  J. Knetsch,et al.  Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value , 1984 .

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The TRACE model of speech perception , 1986, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  A general framework for parallel distributed processing , 1986 .

[11]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[12]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[13]  S. Grossberg.  Neural Networks and Natural Intelligence , 1988 .

[14]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[15]  A. A. J. Marley,et al.  A random utility family that includes many of the ‘classical’ models and has closed form choice probabilities and choice reaction times , 1989 .

[16]  J. Knetsch.  The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves. , 1989 .

[17]  James L. McClelland.  Stochastic interactive processes and the effect of context on perception , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[19]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Context-dependent preferences , 1993 .

[21]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[22]  Marius Usher,et al.  A Neural Network Model for Attribute-Based Decision Processes , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  G. Kane.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol 1: Foundations, vol 2: Psychological and Biological Models , 1994 .

[24]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Dynamic representation of decision-making , 1996 .

[25]  E. Niebur,et al.  Modeling the Temporal Dynamics of IT Neurons in Visual Search: A Mechanism for Top-Down Selective Attention , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  Diederich,et al.  Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making under Time Constraints , 1997, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[27]  A. Diederich,et al.  Conflict and the Stochastic-Dominance Principle of Decision Making , 1999 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[29]  Ravi Dhar,et al.  Trying Hard or Hardly Trying: An Analysis of Context Effects in Choice , 2000 .

[30]  James L. McClelland,et al.  The time course of perceptual choice: the leaky, competing accumulator model. , 2001, Psychological review.

[31]  J. Townsend,et al.  Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic Connectionist Model of Decision Making , 2001 .

[32]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[33]  A. Diederich,et al.  Survey of decision field theory , 2002, Math. Soc. Sci..

[34]  A. Diederich.  MDFT account of decision making under time pressure , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[35]  Robert F. Port,et al.  MIND IN MOTION: , 2019, Dune.

[36]  Decision Field Theory , 2022, Cognitive Choice Modeling.