A Preregistered Falsification Test of the Decision by Sampling Model and Rank-Order Effect

References

• Agley J, Xiao Y, Nolan R, Golzarri-Arroyo L (2022) Quality control questions on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk): A randomized trial of impact on the USAUDIT, PHQ-9, and GAD-7. Behav. Res. Methods 54(2022):885–897.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alempaki D, Canic E, Mullett TL, Skylark WJ, Starmer C, Stewart N, Tufano F (2019) Reexamining how utility and weighting functions get their shapes: A quasi-adversarial collaboration providing a new interpretation. Management Sci. 65(10):4841–4862.Link, Google Scholar
• André Q, de Langhe B (2021a) How (not) to test theory with data: Illustrations from Walasek, Mullett, and Stewart (2020). J. Experiment. Psych. General 150(12):2671–2674.Crossref, Google Scholar
• André Q, de Langhe B (2021b) No evidence for loss aversion disappearance and reversal in Walasek and Stewart (2015). J. Experiment. Psych. General 150(12):1–24.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW (2017) The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(2):3–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bentham J (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Printed in the Year 1780, and Now First Published. By Jeremy Bentham, of Lincoln’s Inn, Esquire (T. Payne and Son, London).Google Scholar
• Berinsky AJ, Margolis MF, Sances MW (2016) Can we turn shirkers into workers? J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 66(2016):20–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bird S, Harris AJ (2018) Robust, domain-specific effects of prior context in risk preferences for pension choice. J. Behav. Decision Making 31(5):605–618.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Martin T (2012) Generalization Across People, Procedures, and Predictions: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Coalescing (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 84–107.Google Scholar
• Brown GDA, Walasek L (2023) Homo ordinalus and sampling models: The past, present, and future of decision by sampling. Fiedler K, Juslin P, Denrell J, eds. Sampling in Judgment and Decision Making (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 35–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brunswik E (1956) Perception and the Representative Design of Psychological Experiments, 2nd ed. (University of California Press, Berkeley).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Canic E (2016) Value is context dependent: On comparison processes and rank order in choice and judgment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
• Chapman GB, Johnson EJ (1999) Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 79(2):115–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher I (1892) Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Frydman C, Jin LJ (2021) Efficient coding and risky choice. Quart. J. Econom. 137(1):161–213.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G (2004) Striking a Blow for Sanity in Theories of Rationality (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 389–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janiszewski C, Wyer RS (2014) Content and process priming: A review. J. Consumer Psych. 24(1):96–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• JASP Team (2022) JASP. Version 0.16.1. https://jasp-stats.org/.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langer EJ (1975) The illusion of control. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 32(2):311–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughlin S (1981) A simple coding procedure enhances a neuron’s information capacity. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 36(9–10):910–912.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mason W, Suri S (2012) Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Matthews WJ (2012) How much do incidental values affect the judgment of time? Psych. Sci. 23(11):1432–1434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McInnis B, Cosley D, Nam C, Leshed G (2016) Taking a HIT: Designing around rejection, mistrust, risk, and workers’ experiences in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Kaye J, Druin A, Lampe C, Morris D, Hourcade JP, Terveen L, Morris S, eds. Proc. 2016 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 2271–2282.Google Scholar
• Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58(4):525–543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nassar MR, Gold JI (2013) A healthy fear of the unknown: Perspectives on the interpretation of parameter fits from computational models in neuroscience. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9(4):e10003015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Noguchi T, Stewart N (2018) Multialternative decision by sampling: A model of decision making constrained by process data. Psych. Rev. 125(4):512–544.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parducci A (1965) Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psych. Rev. 72(6):407–418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parducci A, Perrett LF (1971) Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values. J. Experiment. Psych. 89(2):427–452.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peer E, Vosgerau J, Acquisti A (2014) Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 46(4):1023–1031.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rakow T, Cheung NY, Restelli C (2020) Losing my loss aversion: The effects of current and past environment on the relative sensitivity to losses and gains. Psych. Bull. Rev. 27(6):1333–1340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
• Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making. Psych. Rev. 108(2):370–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rouder JN, Morey RD, Verhagen J, Swagman AR, Wagenmakers EJ (2017) Bayesian analysis of factorial designs. Psych. Methods 22(2):304–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanborn A, Zhu JQ, Spicer J, Sundh J, León-Villagrá P, Chater N (2021) Sampling as the Human Approximation to Probabilistic Inference (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 430–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schacter DL (1987) Implicit memory: History and current status. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 13(3):501–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Canic E, Mullett T (2020) On the futility of estimating utility functions: Why the parameters we measure are wrong, and why they do not generalize. Preprint, submitted January 26, http://dx.doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qt69m.Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Chater N, Brown GD (2006) Decision by sampling. Cognitive Psych. 53(1):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart N, Reimers S, Harris AJL (2015) On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: How they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Management Sci. 61(3):687–705.Link, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Brun W (1995) Yes, but it is uncertain: Direction and communicative intention of verbal probabilistic terms. Acta Psychologica 88(3):233–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Brun W (1999) The directionality of verbal probability expressions: Effects on decisions, predictions, and probabilistic reasoning. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 80(2):155–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teigen KH, Brun W (2003) Verbal probabilities: A question of frame? J. Behav. Decision Making 16(1):53–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trueblood JS, Brown SD, Heathcote A (2014) The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice. Psych. Rev. 121(2):179–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1975) A critique of expected utility theory: Descriptive and normative considerations. Erkenntnis 9(2):163–173.Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(1992):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ungemach C, Stewart N, Reimers S (2011) How incidental values from the environment affect decisions about money, risk, and delay. Psych. Sci. 22(2):253–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2015) How to make loss aversion disappear and reverse: Tests of the decision by sampling origin of loss aversion. J. Experiment. Psych. General 144(1):7–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2019) Context-dependent sensitivity to losses: Range and skew manipulations. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 45(6):957–968.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Stewart N (2020) You cannot accurately estimate an individual’s loss aversion using an accept–reject task. Decision 8(1):2–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walasek L, Mullett TL, Stewart N (2021) Acceptance of mixed gambles is sensitive to the range of gains and losses experienced, and estimates of lambda (λ) are not a reliable measure of loss aversion: Reply to André and de Langhe (2021). J. Experiment. Psych. General 150(12):2666–2670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker A, Braglia L (2017) openxlsx: Read, write and edit xlsx files. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=openxlsx.Google Scholar
• Wickham H, Bryan J (2019) readxl: Read excel files. https://readxl.tidyverse.org/.Google Scholar
• Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, Grolemund G, et al. (2019) Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Software 4(43):1686.Crossref, Google Scholar