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.


Response time distribution for alternative A = (9, 1) in the compromise setup with θ = 5, ξ = 0.01, λ = 0.05, and μ = 0. The expected response time, i.e., the mean of the distribution is 36.6.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 7: Response time distribution for alternative A = (9, 1) in the compromise setup with θ = 5, ξ = 0.01, λ = 0.05, and μ = 0. The expected response time, i.e., the mean of the distribution is 36.6.

Mentions: In 1000 trials with decision threshold θ = 20, noise factor ξ = 0.01, leakage factor λ = 0.05, and no inhibition, alternatives A and B were chosen 247 (24.7%) and 250 (25%) times, respectively, and option C won 503 (50.3%) decisions. Decreasing θ to 10 yields choice frequencies of 243 (24.3%) for alternative A, 267 (26.7%) for option B, and 490 (49%) for alternative C. θ = 5 leads to 253 (36.9%) choices with an average step number of 36.9 for alternative A, 269 (26.9%) choices with 38.3 steps on average for option B, and 478 (47.8%) choices with 43.8 steps on average for alternative C. Figure 7 shows the response time distribution for alternative A for θ = 5, ξ = 0.01, λ = 0.05, and μ = 0. The expected response time, i.e., the mean of the distribution is 36.6. The magnitude of the compromise effect can be influenced by application of an asymmetric value function after comparison of alternatives.


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

Wollschläger LM, Diederich A - Front Psychol (2012)

Response time distribution for alternative A = (9, 1) in the compromise setup with θ = 5, ξ = 0.01, λ = 0.05, and μ = 0. The expected response time, i.e., the mean of the distribution is 36.6.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Figure 7: Response time distribution for alternative A = (9, 1) in the compromise setup with θ = 5, ξ = 0.01, λ = 0.05, and μ = 0. The expected response time, i.e., the mean of the distribution is 36.6.
Mentions: In 1000 trials with decision threshold θ = 20, noise factor ξ = 0.01, leakage factor λ = 0.05, and no inhibition, alternatives A and B were chosen 247 (24.7%) and 250 (25%) times, respectively, and option C won 503 (50.3%) decisions. Decreasing θ to 10 yields choice frequencies of 243 (24.3%) for alternative A, 267 (26.7%) for option B, and 490 (49%) for alternative C. θ = 5 leads to 253 (36.9%) choices with an average step number of 36.9 for alternative A, 269 (26.9%) choices with 38.3 steps on average for option B, and 478 (47.8%) choices with 43.8 steps on average for alternative C. Figure 7 shows the response time distribution for alternative A for θ = 5, ξ = 0.01, λ = 0.05, and μ = 0. The expected response time, i.e., the mean of the distribution is 36.6. The magnitude of the compromise effect can be influenced by application of an asymmetric value function after comparison of alternatives.

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.