1 / 28

Is there Some Format in Which CPT Violations are Attenuated?

Is there Some Format in Which CPT Violations are Attenuated?. Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University, Fullerton. Stochastic Dominance. If A stochastically dominates B, the probability of choosing B over A should not be signicantly greater than 1/2.

hyatt-dotson
Download Presentation

Is there Some Format in Which CPT Violations are Attenuated?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is there Some Format in Which CPT Violations are Attenuated? Michael H. Birnbaum Decision Research Center California State University, Fullerton

  2. Stochastic Dominance If A stochastically dominates B, the probability of choosing B over A should not be signicantly greater than 1/2.

  3. Analysis of Stochastic Dominance • Transitivity: AfB and BfC  AfC • Coalescing: GS = (x, p; x, q; z, r) ~ G = (x, p + q; z, r) • Consequence Monotonicity:

  4. RAM/TAX  Violations of Stochastic Dominance

  5. Which gamble would you prefer to play? 70% of undergrads choose B

  6. Which of these gambles would you prefer to play? 90% choose C over D

  7. Violations of Stochastic Dominance Refute CPT/RDU, predicted by RAM/TAX Both RAM and TAX models predicted this violation of stochastic dominance before the experiment, using parameters fit to previous data.

  8. Questions • Is there some format in which CPT can be saved? • We seek a format in which people satisfy stochastic dominance, show no event-splitting effects (violations of coalescing), and satisfy lower and upper cumulative independence.

  9. Birnbaum & Navarrete (1998) .05 .05 .90.10 .05 .85 $12 $14 $96 $12 $90 $96 70% violations with 4 tests; n = 100. Similar results were obtained by Birnbaum, Patton, & Lott (1999) who used the same format with 5 new tests; n = 110.

  10. Birnbaum & Martin (2003): 74% I: .05 to win $12 J: .10 to win $12 .05 to win $14 .05 to win $90 .90 to win $96 .85 to win $96 This study had a financial incentive; 6% of participants would win the prize of one of their chosen gambles. There were 74% violations, and 68% violated on this choice AND satisfied it in the split form.

  11. Web Format (1999): 67%

  12. Reversed Order: 63% 5. Which do you choose?  I:.90 probability to win $96 .05 probability to win $14 .05 probability to win $12 OR  J:.85 probability to win $96 .05 probability to win $90 .10 probability to win $12

  13. Pie Charts: 65%, 66%

  14. Tickets Format: 71%  I: 90 tickets to win $96 05 tickets to win $14 05 tickets to win $12 OR J: 85 tickets to win $96 05 tickets to win $90 10 tickets to win $12

  15. List Format: 61%, 64% I: $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96 $14 $12 OR J: $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96 $90 $12, $12

  16. Semi-Split List: 56%* I: $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96 $14 $12 OR J: $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96, $96 $90 $12, $12

  17. Marbles: 70%, 76%. Framing: not significant 5. Which do you choose?  I:90 red marbles to win $96 05 blue marbles to win $14 05 white marbles to win $12 OR  J:85 red marbles to win $96 05 blue marbles to win $90 10 white marbles to win $12

  18. Decumulative Probability Format: 80% Violations 5. Which do you choose?  I:.90 probability to win $96 or more .95 probability to win $14 or more 1.00 probability to win $12 or more OR  J:.85 probability to win $96 or more .90 probability to win $90 or more 1.00 probability to win $12 or more (This had a significantly higher rate of violation)

  19. New Formats not published as of 1-25-05

  20. Unaligned Table: Coalesced

  21. Unaligned Table: Split

  22. Aligned Table: Coalesced

  23. Aligned Table: Split Form

  24. Violations of SD: from Web: Spring, 2004 • New Tickets Format 84%04% • Unaligned Table 81%12% • Aligned Table 72%08% • Violations of SD in coalesced and split forms--Choices 5 and 11. (No. Participants: 433-- between-Ss: 141, 141, 151)

  25. Summary: 23 Studies of SD, 8653 participants • Huge effects of splitting vs. coalescing of branches-70% vs 10% • Small effects of education, gender • Very Small effects of probability format, displays • Miniscule effects of event framing (framed vs unframed)

  26. Summary No format has yet been found that leads to data compatible with CPT. Many of the formats that have been used by others have been tested, and violations of SD have been found with all. Similar results with tests of UCI, LCI, and coalescing

  27. Next Program: Testing Models of SD violation • Are people just following some heuristic such as averaging the consequences and not attending to probability? • Tests between TAX and RAM. • It will turn out that TAX beats RAM and that both beat the heuristic.

  28. For More Information: mbirnbaum@fullerton.edu http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/ Download recent papers from this site. Follow links to “brief vita” and then to “in press” for recent papers.

More Related