Theoretical developments in decision field theory: comment on Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater (2010).
نویسندگان
چکیده
Tsetsos, Usher, and Chater (2010) presented several criticisms of decision field theory (DFT) involving its distance function, instability under externally controlled stopping times, and lack of robustness to various multialternative choice scenarios. Here, we counter those claims with a specification of a distance function based on the indifference and dominance dimensions. Using this distance function, we show that the instability problems do not arise when using the internally controlled stopping rule. In conclusion, we argue that the predictions of DFT do not conflict with the data presented and that the model yet provides a coherent and accurate account of multialternative choice phenomena.
منابع مشابه
Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal.
Human choice behavior exhibits many paradoxical and challenging patterns. Traditional explanations focus on how values are represented, but little is known about how values are integrated. Here we outline a psychophysical task for value integration that can be used as a window on high-level, multiattribute decisions. Participants choose between alternative rapidly presented streams of numerical...
متن کاملThe Fragile Nature of Contextual Preference Reversals 1 RUNNING HEAD: The Fragile Nature of Contextual Preference Reversals The Fragile Nature of Contextual Preference Reversals: Reply to Tsetsos, Chater, and Usher
Trueblood, Brown, and Heathcote (2014) developed a new model, called the Multiattribute Linear Ballistic Accumulator (MLBA), to explain contextual preference reversals in multi-alternative choice. MLBA was shown to provide good accounts of human behavior through both qualitative analyses and quantitative fitting of choice data. Tsetsos, Chater, and Usher (in press) investigated the ability of M...
متن کاملMaking Research Matter; Comment on “Public Spending on Health Service and Policy Research in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A Modest Proposal”
We offer a UK-based commentary on the recent “Perspective” published in IJHPM by Thakkar and Sullivan. We are sympathetic to the authors’ call for increased funding for health service and policy research (HSPR). However, we point out that increasing that investment – in any of the three countries they compare: Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom– will ipso facto not necessarily lea...
متن کاملProviders and Patients Caught Between Standardization and Individualization: Individualized Standardization as a Solution; Comment on “(Re) Making the Procrustean Bed? Standardization and Customization as Competing Logics in Healthcare”
In their 2017 article, Mannion and Exworthy provide a thoughtful and theory-based analysis of two parallel trends in modern healthcare systems and their competing and conflicting logics: standardization and customization. This commentary further discusses the challenge of treatment decision-making in times of evidence-based medicine (EBM), shared decision-making and personalized medicine. From ...
متن کاملEconomic irrationality is optimal during noisy decision making.
According to normative theories, reward-maximizing agents should have consistent preferences. Thus, when faced with alternatives A, B, and C, an individual preferring A to B and B to C should prefer A to C. However, it has been widely argued that humans can incur losses by violating this axiom of transitivity, despite strong evolutionary pressure for reward-maximizing choices. Here, adopting a ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Psychological review
دوره 117 4 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2010