Extrapolative Beliefs in Perceptual and Economic Decisions: Evidence of a Common Mechanism

References

• Achtziger A, Alós-Ferrer C (2013) Fast or rational? A response-times study of Bayesian updating. Management Sci. 60(4):923–938.Link, Google Scholar
• Appelt KC, Milch KF, Handgraaf MJJ, Weber EU (2011) The decision making individual differences inventory and guidelines for the study of individual differences in judgment and decision-making research. Judgment Decision Making 6(3):252–262.Google Scholar
• Asparouhova E, Hertzel M, Lemmon M (2009) Inference from streaks in random outcomes: Experimental evidence on beliefs in regime shifting and the law of small numbers. Management Sci. 55(11):1766–1782.Link, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Shleifer A, Vishny R (1998) A model of investor sentiment. J. Financial Econom. 49(3):307–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barberis N, Greenwood R, Jin L, Shleifer A (2015) X-CAPM: An extrapolative capital asset pricing model. J. Financial Econom. 115(1):1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GM, DeGroot MH, Marschak J (1964) Measuring utility by a single response sequential method. Behavioral Sci. 9(3):226–232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Behrens TEJ, Woolrich MW, Walton ME, Rushworth MFS (2007) Learning the value of information in an uncertain world. Nature Neuroscience 10:1214–1221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloomfield R, Hales J (2002) Predicting the next step of a random walk: Experimental evidence of regime-shifting beliefs. J. Financial Econom. 65(3):397–414.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bogacz R, Brown E, Moehlis J, Holmes P, Cohen JD (2006) The physics of optimal decision making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psych. Rev. 113(4):700–765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 10:433–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brav A, Heaton JB (2002) Competing theories of financial anomalies. Rev. Financial Stud. 15(2):575–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chater N, Tenenbaum JB, Yuille A (2006) Probabilistic models of cognition: Conceptual foundations. Trends Cognitive Sci. 10(7):287–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cho RY, Nystrom LE, Brown ET, Jones AD, Braver TS, Holmes PJ, Cohen JD (2002) Mechanisms underlying dependencies of performance on stimulus history in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Cognitive, Affective, Behavioral Neurosci. 2(4):283–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Rangel A (2011) Neuroeconomic foundations of economic choice: Recent advances. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(4):3–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fox CR, Rottenstreich Y (2003) Partition priming in judgment under uncertainty. Psych. Sci. 14(3):195–200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gao J, Wong-Lin K, Holmes P, Simen P, Cohen JD (2009) Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time tasks: Decomposition and synthesis of mechanisms. Neural Comput. 21(9):2407–2436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Vallone R, Tversky A (1985) The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psych. 17(3):295–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Heekeren HR (2013) Neural mechanisms for perceptual decision making. Neuroeconomics, 2nd ed., Glimcher PW, Fehr E (Academic Press, San Diego), 355–372.Google Scholar
• Greenwood R, Shleifer A (2014) Expectations of returns and expected returns. Rev. Financial Stud. 27(3):714–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huettel SA, Mack PB, McCarthy G (2002) Perceiving patterns in random series: Dynamic processing of sequence in prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience 5(5):485–490.Google Scholar
• Hong H, Stein J (1999) A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading and overreaction in asset markets. J. Finance 54(6):2143–2184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones M, Curran T, Mozer MC, Wilder MH (2013) Sequential effects in response time reveal learning mechanisms and event representations. Psych. Rev. 120(3):628–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klauer KC, Voss A, Schmitz F, Teige-Mocigemba S (2007) Process components of the implicit association test: A diffusion-model analysis. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 93(3):353–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Rangel A (2011) Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(33):13852–13857.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Lu D, Camerer C, Rangel A (2012) The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions. Frontiers Psych. 3:Article 193.Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1986) Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization3 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Malmendier U, Nagel S (2011) Depression babies: Do macroeconomic experiences affect risk-taking? Quart. J. Econom. 126(1):373–416.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malmendier U, Nagel S (2015) Learning from inflation experiences. Quart. J. Econom. 131(1):53–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massey C, Wu G (2005) Detecting regime shifts: The causes of under- and overreaction. Management Sci. 51(6):932–947.Link, Google Scholar
• Miller J, Sanjurjo A (2015) A cold shower for the hot hand fallacy. IGIER Working Paper 518, Bocconi University, Milan.Google Scholar
• Milosavljevic M, Navalpakkam V, Koch C, Rangel A (2012) Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. J. Consumer Psych. 22(1):67–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mormann M, Frydman C (2016) The role of salience and attention in choice under risk: An experimental investigation. Working paper, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Mulder MJ, Wagenmakers E-J, Ratcliff R, Boekel W, Forstmann BU (2012) Bias in the brain: A diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. J. Neuroscience 32(7):2335–2343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy P, Joachim V, Nieuwenhuis S (2014) Pupil-linked arousal determines variability in perceptual decision making. PLOS Comput. Biology 10(9).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nassar MR, Rumsey KM, Wilson RC, Parikh K, Heasly B, Gold JI (2012) Rational regulation of learning dynamics by pupil-linked arousal systems. Nature Neuroscience 15(7):1040–1046.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oaksford M, Chater N (2009) Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral Brain Sci. 32(1):69–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oskarsson AT, Van Boven L, McClelland GH, Hastie R (2009) What’s next? Judging sequences of binary events. Psych. Bull. 135(2):262–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Platt ML, Huettel SA (2008) Risky business: The neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty. Nature Neuroscience 11:398–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plonksy O, Teodorescu K, Erev I (2015) Reliance on small samples, the wavy recency effect, and similarity-based learning. Psych. Rev. 122(4):621–647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polanía R, Krajbich I, Grueschow M, Ruff CC (2014) Neural oscillations and synchronization differentially support evidence accumulation in perceptual and value-based decision making. Neuron 82(3):709–720.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (2002) Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):775–816.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rangel A, Camerer C, Read Montague P (2008) A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision-making. Nature Rev. Neuroscience 9:545–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psych. Rev. 85(2):59–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, McKoon G (2008) The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Comput. 20(4):873–922.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Smith PL (2004) A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psych. Rev. 111(2):333–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Tuerlinckx F (2002) Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 9(3):438–481.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roitman JD, Shadlen MN (2002) Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neuroscience 22(21):9475–9489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rorie AE, Gao J, McClelland JL, Newsome WT (2010) Integration of sensory and reward information during perceptual decision-making in lateral intraparietal cortex (LIP) of the macaque monkey. PloS One 5(2):e9308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Soetens E, Boer LC, Hueting JE (1985) Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. J. Experiment. Psych.: Human Perception and Performance 11(5):598–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sugrue LP, Corrado GS, Newsome WT (2004) Matching behavior and the representation of value in the parietal cortex. Science 304(5678):1782–1787.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Summerfield C, Tsetsos K (2012) Building bridges between perceptual and economic decision-making: Neural and computational mechanisms. Frontiers in Neuroscience 6:70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Summerfield C, Tsetsos K (2015) Do humans make good decisions? Trends in Cognitive Sci. 19(1):27–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teodorescu AR, Usher M (2013) Disentangling decision models: From independence to competition. Psych. Rev. 120(1):1–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teodorescu AR, Moran R, Usher M (2015) Absolutely relative or relatively absolute: Violations of value invariance in human decision making. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 23(1):22–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Towal RB, Mormann M, Koch C (2013) Simultaneous modeling of visual saliency and value computation improves predictions of economic choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110(40):3858–3867.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Townsend JT, Ashby FG (1983) The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A, Busemeyer JR (2013) Not just for consumers context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psych. Sci. 24(6):901–908.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tsetsos K, Chater N, Usher M (2012) Salience driven value integration explains decision biases and preference reversal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(24):9659–9664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Usher M, McClelland JL (2001) The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psych. Rev. 108(3):550–592.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vandekerckhove J, Tuerlinckx F (2008) Diffusion model analysis with MATLAB: A DMAT primer. Behav. Res. Methods 40(1):61–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Ravenzwaaij D, Mulder MJ, Tuerlinckx F, Wagenmakers E-J (2012) Do the dynamics of prior information depend on task context? An analysis of optimal performance and an empirical test. Frontiers Psych. 3(132).Google Scholar
• Webb R (2015) The dynamics of stochastic choice. Working paper, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
• White CN, Poldrack RA (2014) Decomposing bias in different types of simple decisions. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 40(2):385–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilder MH, Jones M, Mozer M (2009) Sequential effects reflect parallel learning of multiple environmental regularities. Bengio Y, Schuurmans D, Lafferty JD, Williams CKI, Culotta A, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 22 (Neural Information Processing Systems, La Jolla, CA), 2053–2061.Google Scholar
• Wilder MH, Jones M, Ahmed AA, Curran T, Mozer MC (2013) The persistent impact of incidental experience. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 20(6):1221–1231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Woodford M (2014) Stochastic choice: An optimizing neuroeconomic model. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(5):495–500.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu JA, Cohen JD (2008) Sequential effects: Superstition or rational behavior? Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems 21 (Neural Information Processing Systems, La Jolla, CA), 1873–1880.Google Scholar
• Zhang S, Huang CH, Yu JA (2014) Sequential effects: A Bayesian analysis of prior bias on reaction time and behavioral choice. Proc. 36th Annual Conf. Cognitive Sci. Soc. (Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX), 1844–1849.Google Scholar