A Behavioral Characterization of the Drift Diffusion Model and Its Multialternative Extension for Choice Under Time Pressure

References

• Agranov M, Ortoleva P (2017) Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. J. Political Econom. 125(1):40–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alos-Ferrer C, Fehr E, Netzer N (2018) Time will tell: Recovering preferences when choices are noisy. Working Paper 306, Department of Economics, University of Zurich, Zurich.Google Scholar
• Anderson SP, Goeree JK, Holt CA (2004) Noisy directional learning and the logit equilibrium. Scandinavian J. Econom. 106(3):581–602.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ash RB (1965) Information Theory (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Baldassi C, Cerreia-Vioglio S, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Pirazzini M (2020) Multialternative neural decision processes. Preprint, submitted May 3, https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01081.Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Heukamp FH (2012) Probability and time trade-off. Management Sci. 58(4):831–842.Link, Google Scholar
• Bogacz R, Usher M, Zhang J, McClelland JL (2007) Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. London B: Biol. Sci. 362(1485):1655–1670.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
• Borodin AN, Salminen P (1996) Handbook of Brownian Motion—Facts and Formulae (Springer, Basel, Switzerland).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (1993) Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. 100(3):432–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Caplin A, Dean M, Leahy J (2019) Rational inattention, optimal consideration sets, and stochastic choice. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(3):1061–1094.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cattell JM (1902) The time of perception as a measure of differences in intensity. Philosophische Studien 19:63–68.Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Dillenberger D, Ortoleva P, Riella G (2019) Deliberately stochastic. Amer. Econom. Rev. 109(7):2425–2445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerreia-Vioglio S, Maccheroni F, Marinacci M, Rustichini A (2017) Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: Inside and outside the black box. IGIER Working Paper 615, Università Bocconi.Google Scholar
• Chandon P, Hutchinson JW, Bradlow ET, Young SH (2009) Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. J. Marketing 73(6):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiong K, Shum M, Webb R, Chen R (2019) Combining choices and response times in the field: a drift-diffusion model of mobile advertisement. Working paper, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson.Google Scholar
• Clithero JA (2018) Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 148:344–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ditterich J (2010) A comparison between mechanisms of multi-alternative perceptual decision making: Ability to explain human behavior, predictions for neurophysiology, and relationship with decision theory. Frontiers Neurosci. 4:184.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drugowitsch J (2016) Fast and accurate Monte Carlo sampling of first-passage times from Wiener diffusion models. Sci. Rep. 6:20490.Google Scholar
• Echenique F, Saito K (2017) Response time and utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 139:49–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eliaz K, Spiegler R (2011) Consideration sets and competitive marketing. Rev. Econom. Stud. 78(1):235–262.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Epstein LG, Ji S (2018) Optimal learning under robustness and time-consistency. Working paper, Boston University, Boston.Google Scholar
• Falmagne JC (2002) Elements of Psychophysical Theory (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Fechner GT (1966) Elements of Psychophysics (1860, Elemente der psychophysik, Breitkopf und Härtel) (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York).Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Rangel A (2011) Neuroeconomic foundations of economic choice—Recent advances. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(4):3–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Strack P, Strzalecki T (2018) Speed, accuracy, and the optimal timing of choices. Amer. Econom. Rev. 108(12):3651–3684.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaynor M, Propper C, Seiler S (2016) Free to choose? Reform, choice, and consideration sets in the English National Health Service. Amer. Econom. Rev. 106:3521–3557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gold JI, Shadlen MN (2002) Banburismus and the brain: decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron 36(2):299–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hare TA, Schultz W, Camerer CF, O’Doherty JP, Rangel A (2011) Transformation of stimulus value signals into motor commands during simple choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(44):18120–18125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR (2014) Consideration-set heuristics. J. Bus. Res. 67(8):1688–1699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karsilar H, Simen P, Papadakis S, Balci F (2014) Speed accuracy trade-off under response deadlines. Frontiers Neurosci. 8:248.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, Armel C, Rangel A (2010) Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nat. Neurosci. 13(10):1292–1298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krajbich I, Lu D, Camerer C, Rangel A (2012) The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions. Frontiers Psych. 3:193.Google Scholar
• Lerche V, Voss A (2016) Model complexity in diffusion modeling: Benefits of making the model more parsimonious. Frontiers Psych. 7:1324.Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1959) Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1986) Response Times (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility and subjective probability. Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 3 (Wiley, New York), 249–410.Google Scholar
• Luck SJ, Vogel EK (1997) The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature 390(6657):279–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madras NN (2002) Lectures on Monte Carlo Methods (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI).Google Scholar
• Manzini P, Mariotti M (2014) Stochastic choice and consideration sets. Econometrica 82(3):1153–1176.Google Scholar
• Masatlioglu Y, Nakajima D, Ozbay EY (2012) Revealed attention. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(5):2183–2205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McMillen T, Holmes P (2006) The dynamics of choice among multiple alternatives. J. Math. Psych. 50(1):30–57.Crossref, 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
• Milosavljevic M, Malmaud J, Huth A, Koch C, Rangel A (2010) The drift diffusion model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure. Judgment Decision Making 5(6):437–449.Google Scholar
• Norris JR (1997) Markov Chains (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nowlis SM (1995) The effect of time pressure on the choice between brands that differ in quality, price, and product features. Marketing Lett. 6(4):287–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ortega P, Stocker AA (2016) Human decision-making under limited time. Proc. NIPS 2016 Conf. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Orquin JL, Mueller Loose S (2013) Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psych. (Amsterdam) 144(1):190–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peter JP, Olson JC (2010) Consumer Behavior & Marketing Strategy (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Pieters R, Warlop L (1999) Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 16(1):1–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rasch G (1961) On general laws and the meaning of measurement in psychology. Proc. 4th Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. Probability (University of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
• Rasch G (1964) Objective comparisons. Presentation, UNESCO Seminar, Volksenasen, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psych. Rev. 85(2):59–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Cherian A, Segraves M (2003) A comparison of macaque behavior and superior colliculus neuronal activity to predictions from models of two-choice decisions. J. Neurophysiology 90(3):1392–1407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliff R, Smith PL, Brown SD, McKoon G (2016) Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends Cognitive Sci. 20(4):260–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF, Rangel A (2011) Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(2):900–926.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ringel DM, Skiera B (2016) Visualizing asymmetric competition among more than 1,000 products using big search data. Marketing Sci. 35(3):511–534.Link, Google Scholar
• Roberts J, Nedungadi P (1995) Studying consideration in the consumer decision process: Progress and challenges. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 12:3–7.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psych. Rev. 108(2):370–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo JE, Leclerc F (1994) An eye-fixation analysis of choice processes for consumer nondurables. J. Consumer Res. 21(2):274–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russo JE, Rosen LD (1975) An eye fixation analysis of multialternative choice. Memory Cognition 3(3):267–276.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shadlen MN, Shohamy D (2016) Decision making and sequential sampling from memory. Neuron 90(5):927–939.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shocker AD, Ben-Akiva M, Boccara B, Nedungadi P (1991) Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing Lett. 2(3):181–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stine GM, Zylberberg A, Ditterich J, Shadlen MN (2019) Neural mechanisms of perceptual decision-making. Gazzaniga MS, Mangun GR, eds. The Cognitive Neurosciences, 6th ed. (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Thurstone LL (1930) The learning function. J. Gen. Psych. 3(4):469–493.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
• van Ravenzwaaij D, Donkin C, Vandekerckhove J (2017) The EZ diffusion model provides a powerful test of simple empirical effects. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 24(6984):547–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vogel EK, Machizawa MG (2004) Neural activity predicts individual differences in visual working memory capacity. Nature 428:748–751.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers EJ, Van Der Maas HL, Grasman RP (2007) An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 14(1):3–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webb R (2019) The (neural) dynamics of stochastic choice. Management Sci. 65(1):230–255.Link, Google Scholar