Comparison of Basic Assumptions Embedded in Learning Models for Experience-Based Decision Making

By Yechiam, Eldad; Busemeyer, Jerome R. | Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Comparison of Basic Assumptions Embedded in Learning Models for Experience-Based Decision Making


Yechiam, Eldad, Busemeyer, Jerome R., Psychonomic Bulletin & Review


The present study examined basic assumptions embedded in learning models for predicting behavior in decisions based on experience. In such decisions, the probabilities and payoffs are initially unknown and are learned from repeated choice with payoff feedback. We examined combinations of two rules for updating past experience with new payoff feedback and of two choice rule assumptions for mapping experience onto choices. The combination of these assumptions produced four classes of models that were systematically compared. Two methods were employed to evaluate the success of learning models for approximating players' choices: One was based on estimating parameters from each person's data to maximize the prediction of choices one step ahead, conditioned by the observed past history of feedback. The second was based on making a priori predictions for the entire sequence of choices using parameters estimated from a separate experiment. The results indicated the advantage of a class of models incorporating decay of previous experience, whereas the ranking of choice rules depended on the evaluation method used.

Recently, interest has been rising in learning models that are applied to choices from repeated-play games. Recent studies of choice behavior in individual (see, e.g., Busemeyer & Myung, 1992; Erev & Barron, in press; Sarin & Vahid, 1999) and multiplayer (see, e.g., Camerer & Ho, 1999b; Cheung & Friedman, 1997; Erev & Rapoport, 1998; Erev & Roth, 1998; Fudenberg & Levine, 1995; Sarin & Vahid, 2001 ; Stahl, 1996) games have shown that learning in repeated-choice problems can be summarized by using surprisingly simple mathematical models. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic comparison of the basic assumptions used to construct models for decision making based on experience from repeated play.

We evaluated four classes of models that were formed by combining two basic assumptions about learning rules with two basic assumptions about choice rules (see Table 1). The learning rules in these models differed according to the manner in which past experience was updated on the basis of new feedback: In one class, called the interference models, only the chosen option was updated, and unchosen options remained unchanged; in the other, called the decay models, the chosen option was updated and the unchosen options were discounted by some amount. The choice rules differed according to the manner in which past experience was mapped onto choice behavior: In one class, the option producing the maximum expectation was always chosen (with some guessing allowed); in the other, choices were probabilistically determined by the strength of expectation.

Two methods were used to compare the empirical validity of the models. The first was based on "one-stepahead" predictions, and the second on simulation of the entire game. Under the first method, the model predicted the player's next choice ahead using the past history of payoffs actually experienced by a player. In this case, the model parameters were estimated separately for each player to maximize the likelihood of the observed choices. Using the second method, model simulations were generated to predict the proportion of choices, averaged across players, for the entire length of the game. In this case, parameters estimated from one experiment were used to generate a priori predictions for a second experiment. The advantage of the first method was that it allowed tests of the model at the individual level, but it also had two disadvantages: (1) It had to rely on actual past choices of an individual, and (2) it relied on fitting parameters to the data. The second method circumvented both of these disadvantages, but it could not be used to test models at the individual level. By using both methods, we hoped to achieve a convergence of evidence.

A four-alternative choice task was chosen for model comparison rather than a simple two-alternative (binary) task because it allowed us to explore the main difference between interference and decay models.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Comparison of Basic Assumptions Embedded in Learning Models for Experience-Based Decision Making
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?