Limits...
The 2N-ary Choice Tree Model for N-Alternative Preferential Choice.

Wollschläger LM, Diederich A - Front Psychol (2012)

Bottom Line: It implements pairwise comparison of alternatives on weighted attributes into an information sampling process which, in turn, results in a preference process.Then it is shown how the model accounts for several context-effects observed in human preferential choice like similarity, attraction, and compromise effects and how long it takes, on average, for the decision.A short discussion on how the 2N-ary choice tree model differs from the multi-alternative decision field theory and the leaky competing accumulator model is provided.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen Bremen, Germany.

ABSTRACT
The 2N-ary choice tree model accounts for response times and choice probabilities in multi-alternative preferential choice. It implements pairwise comparison of alternatives on weighted attributes into an information sampling process which, in turn, results in a preference process. The model provides expected choice probabilities and response time distributions in closed form for optional and fixed stopping times. The theoretical background of the 2N-ary choice tree model is explained in detail with focus on the transition probabilities that take into account constituents of human preferences such as expectations, emotions, or socially influenced attention. Then it is shown how the model accounts for several context-effects observed in human preferential choice like similarity, attraction, and compromise effects and how long it takes, on average, for the decision. The model is extended to deal with more than three choice alternatives. A short discussion on how the 2N-ary choice tree model differs from the multi-alternative decision field theory and the leaky competing accumulator model is provided.

No MeSH data available.


Choice probabilities for choice between three alternatives A = (9, 1), B = (1, 9), and C = (1, 9) and different attention weights w1 and w2 for the two attributes. The abscissa is labeled with increasing values of w2 corresponding to decreasing values of w1. For w2 < 0.625 a similarity effect can be observed.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3378970&req=5

Figure 5: Choice probabilities for choice between three alternatives A = (9, 1), B = (1, 9), and C = (1, 9) and different attention weights w1 and w2 for the two attributes. The abscissa is labeled with increasing values of w2 corresponding to decreasing values of w1. For w2 < 0.625 a similarity effect can be observed.

Mentions: The most interesting parameters in this attempt to model a similarity effect are the attribute weights as they control the strength of the effect. Figure 5 demonstrates this by means of choice probabilities from simulations with different sets of attribute weights but otherwise unchanged parameters. It starts with and on the left side and gradually changes by 0.05 to on the right side. The relative frequency of choices for alternatives A, B, and C including the mean number of steps leading to these choices can be found in Table 1.


The 2N-ary Choice Tree Model for N-Alternative Preferential Choice.

Wollschläger LM, Diederich A - Front Psychol (2012)

Choice probabilities for choice between three alternatives A = (9, 1), B = (1, 9), and C = (1, 9) and different attention weights w1 and w2 for the two attributes. The abscissa is labeled with increasing values of w2 corresponding to decreasing values of w1. For w2 < 0.625 a similarity effect can be observed.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3378970&req=5

Figure 5: Choice probabilities for choice between three alternatives A = (9, 1), B = (1, 9), and C = (1, 9) and different attention weights w1 and w2 for the two attributes. The abscissa is labeled with increasing values of w2 corresponding to decreasing values of w1. For w2 < 0.625 a similarity effect can be observed.
Mentions: The most interesting parameters in this attempt to model a similarity effect are the attribute weights as they control the strength of the effect. Figure 5 demonstrates this by means of choice probabilities from simulations with different sets of attribute weights but otherwise unchanged parameters. It starts with and on the left side and gradually changes by 0.05 to on the right side. The relative frequency of choices for alternatives A, B, and C including the mean number of steps leading to these choices can be found in Table 1.

Bottom Line: It implements pairwise comparison of alternatives on weighted attributes into an information sampling process which, in turn, results in a preference process.Then it is shown how the model accounts for several context-effects observed in human preferential choice like similarity, attraction, and compromise effects and how long it takes, on average, for the decision.A short discussion on how the 2N-ary choice tree model differs from the multi-alternative decision field theory and the leaky competing accumulator model is provided.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen Bremen, Germany.

ABSTRACT
The 2N-ary choice tree model accounts for response times and choice probabilities in multi-alternative preferential choice. It implements pairwise comparison of alternatives on weighted attributes into an information sampling process which, in turn, results in a preference process. The model provides expected choice probabilities and response time distributions in closed form for optional and fixed stopping times. The theoretical background of the 2N-ary choice tree model is explained in detail with focus on the transition probabilities that take into account constituents of human preferences such as expectations, emotions, or socially influenced attention. Then it is shown how the model accounts for several context-effects observed in human preferential choice like similarity, attraction, and compromise effects and how long it takes, on average, for the decision. The model is extended to deal with more than three choice alternatives. A short discussion on how the 2N-ary choice tree model differs from the multi-alternative decision field theory and the leaky competing accumulator model is provided.

No MeSH data available.