simulation_study.Rmd 27.2 KB
Newer Older
1
---
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
2
3
title: 'Sampling Strategies in Decisions from Experience'
author: "Linus Hof, Thorsten Pachur, Veronika Zilker"
4
5
6
7
8
9
bibliography: sampling-strategies-in-dfe.bib
output:
  html_document:
    code_folding: hide
    toc: yes
    toc_float: yes
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
10
    number_sections: no
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
11
12
13
  pdf_document:
    toc: yes
csl: apa.csl
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
14
15
16
editor_options: 
  markdown: 
    wrap: sentence
17
18
---

19
20
```{r}
# load packages
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
21
22
pacman::p_load(repro,
               tidyverse,
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
23
24
               knitr, 
               viridis)
25
26
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
27
# Note
28

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
29
30
-   Some of the R code is folded but can be unfolded by clicking the `Code` buttons.
-   This document was created from the commit with the hash `r repro::current_hash()`.
31

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
32
33
# Abstract

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
34
Synthetic choice data from decisions from experience is generated by applying different strategies of sample integration to choice problems of 2-prospects.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
35
The synthetic data is explored for characteristic choice patterns produced by comprehensive and piecewise forms of sample integration under varying structures of the environment (gamble features) and aspects of the sampling- and decision behavior (model parameters).
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
36
37
38

# Summary

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
39
Provide short summary of simulation study results.
40

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
41
# Introduction
42

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
## Prospects

Let a single prospect be a *probability space* $(\Omega, \Sigma, P)$ [cf. @kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950]. $\Omega$ is the *sample space* containing a finite set of possible outcomes $\{\omega_1, ..., \omega_n\}$. 
$\Sigma$ is a set of subsets of $\Omega$, i.e., the *event space*. 
$P$ is then a *probability mass function* (PMF) which maps the event space to the set of real numbers in the interval between 0 and 1: $P: \Sigma \mapsto [0,1]$.
I.e., the PMF assigns each event $\varsigma_i$ a probability of $0 \leq p_i \leq 1$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{n} p(\varsigma_i) = 1$.
The PMF also fulfills the condition $P(\Omega) = 1$.

## Monetary Prospects as Random Variables

We can define a random variable on the probability space of a prospect by defining a function that maps the sample space to a measurable space: $X: \Omega \mapsto E$, where $E = \mathbb{R}$.
Hence, every subset of $E$ has a preimage in $\Sigma$ and can be assigned a probability.

In choice problems, where agents are asked to make a decision between $n$ monetary prospects, the mapping $\Omega \mapsto E$ is often implicit since all elements of $\Omega$ are real numbered (monetary gains or losses) and usually equal to the elements in $\Sigma$.  

## Sampling in Decisions from Experience (DFE)

In DFE [@hertwigDecisionsExperienceEffect2004], where no summary description of prospects' probability spaces are provided, agents can either first explore them before arriving to a final choice (*sampling paradigm*), or, exploration and exploitation occur simultaneously (*partial-* or *full-feedback paradigm*) [cf. @hertwigDescriptionExperienceGap2009].
Below, only the sampling paradigm is considered. 

In the context of choice problems between monetary gambles, we define a *single sample* as an outcome obtained when randomly drawing from a prospect's sample space $\Omega$. 
Technically, a single sample is thus the realization of a discrete random variable $X$, which fulfills the conditions outlined above. 

In general terms, we define a *sampling strategy* as a systematic approach to generate a sequence of single samples from a choice problem's prospects as a means of exploring their probability spaces. 
Single samples that are generated from the same prospect reflect a sequence of realizations of random variables that are independent and identically distributed.

### Sampling Strategies and Sample Integration

...
72

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
73
74
# Method

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
75
## Test set
76

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Under each condition, i.e., strategy-parameter combinations, all gambles are played by 100 synthetic agents.
We test a set of gambles, in which one of the prospects contains a safe outcome and the other two risky outcomes (*safe-risky gambles*).
Therefore, 60 gambles from an initial set of 10,000 are sampled.
Both outcomes and probabilities are drawn from uniform distributions, ranging from 0 to 20 for outcomes and from .01 to .99 for probabilities of the lower risky outcomes $p_{low}$.
The probabilities of the higher risky outcomes are $1-p_{low}$, respectively.
To omit dominant prospects, safe outcomes fall between both risky outcomes.
The table below contains the test set of 60 gambles.
Sampling of gambles was stratified, randomly drawing an equal number of 20 gambles with no, an attractive, and an unattractive rare outcome.
Risky outcomes are considered *"rare"* if their probability is $p < .2$ and *"attractive"* (*"unattractive"*) if they are higher (lower) than the safe outcome.
86

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
87
88
89
```{r message=FALSE}
gambles <- read_csv("data/gambles/sr_subset.csv")
gambles %>% kable()
90
91
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
92
## Model Parameters
93

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
94
**Switching probability** $s$ is the probability with which agents draw the following single sample from the prospect they did not get their most recent single sample from.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
95
$s$ is varied between .1 to 1 in increments of .1.
96

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
97
The **boundary type** is either the minimum value any prospect's sample statistic must reach (absolute) or the minimum value for the difference of these statistics (relative).
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
98
Sample statistics are sums over outcomes (comprehensive strategy) and sums over wins (piecewise strategy), respectively.
99

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
100
101
For comprehensive integration, the **boundary value** $a$ is varied between 15 to 75 in increments of 15.
For piecewise integration $a$ is varied between 1 to 5 in increments of 1.
102

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
103
```{r message=FALSE}
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
# read choice data 
cols <- list(.default = col_double(),
             strategy = col_factor(),
             boundary = col_factor(),
             gamble = col_factor(),
             rare = col_factor(),
             agent = col_factor(),
             choice = col_factor())
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
112
choices <- read_csv("data/choices/choices.csv", col_types = cols)
113
114
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
115
In sum, 2 (strategies) x 60 (gambles) x 100 (agents) x 100 (parameter combinations) = `r nrow(choices)` choices are simulated.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
116

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
117
# Results
118

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
119
120
Because we are not interested in deviations from normative choice due to sampling artifacts (e.g., ceiling effects produced by low boundaries), we remove trials in which only one prospect was attended.
In addition, we use relative frequencies of sampled outcomes rather than 'a priori' probabilities to compare actual against normative choice behavior.
121
122

```{r}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
123
124
125
# remove choices where prospects were not attended
choices <- choices %>%
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp)))
126
127
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
128
129
130
131
132
```{r eval = FALSE}
# remove choices where not all outcomes were sampled
choices <- choices %>% 
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp) | a_p1_exp == 0 | a_p2_exp == 0))
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
133

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
134
Removing the respective trials, we are left with `r nrow(choices)` choices.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
135

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
136
## Sample Size
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
137

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
138
139
140
141
142
143
```{r message=FALSE}
samples <- choices %>% 
  group_by(strategy, s, boundary, a) %>% 
  summarise(n_med = median(n_sample))
samples_piecewise <- samples %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
samples_comprehensive <- samples %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
144
145
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
146
The median sample sizes generated by different parameter combinations ranged from `r min(samples_piecewise$n_med)` to `r max(samples_piecewise$n_med)` for piecewise integration and `r min(samples_comprehensive$n_med)` to `r max(samples_comprehensive$n_med)` for comprehensive integration.
147

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
148
### Boundary type and boundary value (a)
149

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
150
As evidence is accumulated sequentially, relative boundaries and large boundary values naturally lead to larger sample sizes, irrespective of the integration strategy.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
151

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
152
153
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
154
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
155
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all s values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
156

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
157
158
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
159
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
160
161
162
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
163
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
164
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
165
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
166
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
167
  theme_minimal()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
168
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
169

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
170
171
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
172
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
173
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
174

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
175
176
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
177
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
178
179
180
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
181
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
182
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
183
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
184
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
185
  theme_minimal()
186
187
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
188
### Switching probability (s)
189

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
190
191
192
For piecewise integration, there is an inverse relationship between switching probability and sample size.
I.e., the lower s, the less frequent prospects are compared and thus, boundaries are only approached with larger sample sizes.
This effect is particularly pronounced for low probabilities such that the increase in sample size accelerates as switching probability decreases.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
193

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
194
195
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
196
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
197
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
198

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
199
200
201
202
203
204
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(s, n_med, color = s)) + 
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
205
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
206
       x ="s", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
207
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
208
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
209
210
211
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
212
213
214
For comprehensive integration, boundary types differ in the effects of switching probability.
For absolute boundaries, switching probability has no apparent effect on sample size as the distance of a given prospect to its absolute boundary is not changed by switching to (and sampling from) the other prospect.
For relative boundaries, however, samples sizes increase with switching probability.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
215

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
216
217
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
218
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
219
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
220

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
221
222
223
224
225
226
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(s, n_med, color = s)) + 
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
227
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
228
229
230
       x ="s",
       y = "Sample Size", 
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
231
232
233
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
234
## Choice Behavior
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
235

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
236
Below, in extension to Hills and Hertwig [-@hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010], the interplay of integration strategies, gamble features, and model parameters in their effects on choice behavior in general and their contribution to underweighting of rare events in particular is investigated.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
We apply two definitions of underweighting of rare events: Considering false response rates, we define underweighting such that the rarity of an attractive (unattractive) outcome leads to choose the safe (risky) prospect although the risky (safe) prospect has a higher expected value.

```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates <- choices %>% 
  mutate(ev_ratio_exp = round(a_ev_exp/b_ev_exp, 2), 
         norm = case_when(ev_ratio_exp > 1 ~ "A", ev_ratio_exp < 1 ~ "B")) %>% 
  filter(!is.na(norm)) %>% # exclude trials with normative indifferent options
  group_by(strategy, s, boundary, a, rare, norm, choice) %>% # group correct and incorrect responses
  summarise(n = n()) %>% # absolute numbers 
  mutate(rate = round(n/sum(n), 2), # response rates 
         type = case_when(norm == "A" & choice == "B" ~ "false safe", norm == "B" & choice == "A" ~ "false risky")) %>% 
  filter(!is.na(type)) # remove correct responses
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
249
250
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
251
Considering the parameters of Prelec's [-@prelecProbabilityWeightingFunction1998] implementation of the weighting function [CPT; cf. @tverskyAdvancesProspectTheory1992], underweighting is reflected by decisions weights estimated to be smaller than the corresponding objective probabilities.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
252

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
253
### False Response Rates
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
254

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
255
256
257
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates_piecewise <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
fr_rates_comprehensive <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
258
```
259

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
260
The false response rates generated by different parameter combinations ranged from `r min(fr_rates_piecewise$rate)` to `r max(fr_rates_piecewise$rate)` for piecewise integration and from `r min(fr_rates_comprehensive$rate)` to `r max(fr_rates_comprehensive$rate)` for comprehensive integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
261
However, false response rates vary considerably as a function of rare events, indicating that their presence and attractiveness are large determinants of false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
262

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
263
264
265
266
267
268
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  group_by(strategy, boundary, rare) %>% 
  summarise(min = min(rate),
            max = max(rate)) %>% 
  kable()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
269
270
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
271
The heatmaps below show the false response rates for all strategy-parameter combinations.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
272
273
Consistent with our - somewhat rough - definition of underweighting, the rate of false risky responses is generally higher, if the unattractive outcome of the risky prospect is rare (top panel).
Conversely, if the attractive outcome of the risky prospect is rare, the rate of false safe responses is generally higher (bottom panel).
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
274
As indicated by the larger range of false response rates, the effects of rare events are considerably larger for piecewise integration.
275

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(1, 5, 1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration | Absolute Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
290
291
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise", boundary == "relative") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(1, 5, 1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration | Relative Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
307

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
308
309
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
310
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(15, 75, 15)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration | Absolute Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
326
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "relative") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
  ggplot(aes(a, s, fill = rate)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_tile(colour="white", size=0.25) + 
  scale_x_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(15, 75, 15)) +
  scale_y_continuous(expand=c(0,0), breaks = seq(.1, 1, .1)) +
  scale_fill_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration | Relative Boundary",
       x = "a", 
       y= "s", 
       fill = "% False Responses") + 
  theme_minimal() 
338
339
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
340
#### Switching Probability (s) and Boundary Value (a)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
341

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
342
As for both piecewise and comprehensive integration the differences between boundary types are rather minor and of magnitude than of qualitative pattern, the remaining analyses of false response rates are summarized across absolute and relative boundaries.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
343

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
344
Below, the $s$ and $a$ parameter are considered as additional sources of variation in the false response pattern above and beyond the interplay of integration strategies and the rarity and attractiveness of outcomes.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
345

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise") %>% 
  ggplot(aes(s, rate, color = a)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_jitter(size = 2) + 
  scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```
361

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
362
363
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
364
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
365
366
367
368
369
370
  ggplot(aes(s, rate, color = a)) + 
  facet_grid(type ~ fct_relevel(rare, "attractive", "none", "unattractive"), switch = "y") +
  geom_jitter(size = 2) + 
  scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_y_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 1, .1)) +
  scale_color_viridis() + 
371
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
372
373
374
375
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
376
377
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
378
For piecewise integration, switching probability is naturally related to the size of the samples on which the round-wise comparisons of prospects are based on, with low values of $s$ indicating large samples and vice versa.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
379
Accordingly, switching probability is positively related to false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
380
381
I.e., the larger the switching probability, the smaller the round-wise sample size and the probability of experiencing a rare event within a given round.
Because round-wise comparisons are independent of each other and binomial distributions within a given round are skewed for small samples and outcome probabilities [@kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950], increasing boundary values do not reverse but rather amplify this relation.
382

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
383
384
385
For comprehensive integration, switching probability is negatively related to false response rates, i.e., an increase in $s$ is associated with decreasing false response rates.
This relation, however, may be the result of an artificial interaction between the $s$ and $a$ parameter.
Precisely, in the current algorithmic implementation of sampling with a comprehensive integration mechanism, decreasing switching probabilities cause comparisons of prospects based on increasingly unequal sample sizes immediately after switching prospects.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
386
Consequentially, reaching (low) boundaries is rather a function of switching probability and associated sample sizes than of actual evidence for a given prospect over the other.
387

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
### Cumulative Prospect Theory

In the following, we examine the possible relations between the parameters of the *choice-generating* sampling models and the *choice-describing* cumulative prospect theory.

For each distinct strategy-parameter combination, we ran 20 chains of 40,000 iterations each, after a warm-up period of 1000 samples.
To reduce potential autocorrelation during the sampling process, we only kept every 20th sample (thinning).

```{r}
# read CPT data
cols <- list(.default = col_double(),
             strategy = col_factor(),
             boundary = col_factor(),
             parameter = col_factor())
estimates <- read_csv("data/estimates/estimates_cpt_pooled.csv", col_types = cols)
```

#### Convergence

```{r}
gel_92 <- max(estimates$Rhat) # get largest scale reduction factor (Gelman & Rubin, 1992) 
```

The potential scale reduction factor $\hat{R}$ was $n \leq$ `r round(gel_92, 3)` for all estimates, indicating good convergence.

#### Piecewise Integration 

```{r}
# generate subset of all strategy-parameter combinations (rows) and their parameters (columns)
curves_cpt <- estimates %>% 
  select(strategy, s, boundary, a, parameter, mean) %>% 
  pivot_wider(names_from = parameter, values_from = mean)
```

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.

```{r}

cpt_curves_piecewise <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise") %>% 
  expand_grid(p = seq(0, 1, .1)) %>% # add vector of objective probabilities
  mutate(w = round(exp(-delta*(-log(p))^gamma), 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)

# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

Similarly to the false response rates, the patterns of the weighting function do not differ for the boundary types. 

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary)
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") +
  theme_minimal() 
```

Regarding the boundary value, we observe a distinct pattern for the smallest boundary, i.e. a = 1. 

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

As a general trend we find that with decreasing switching probabilities, probability weighting becomes more linear.

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

This trend holds for different boundary values. 

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

##### Value function v(x)

```{r}

cpt_curves_piecewise <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "piecewise") %>% 
  expand_grid(x = seq(0, 20, 2)) %>% # add vector of objective outcomes
  mutate(v = round(x^alpha, 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)

# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

#### Comprehensive Integration 

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
578

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
```{r}

cpt_curves_comprehensive <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
  expand_grid(p = seq(0, 1, .1)) %>% # add vector of objective probabilities
  mutate(w = round(exp(-delta*(-log(p))^gamma), 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)

# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary)
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

##### Value function v(x)

```{r}

cpt_curves_comprehensive <- curves_cpt %>% 
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
  expand_grid(x = seq(0, 20, 2)) %>% # add vector of objective outcomes
  mutate(v = round(x^alpha, 2)) # compute decision weights (cf. Prelec, 1998)


# all strategy-parameter combinations 

cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(x, v, color = s)) + 
  geom_path(size = .5) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Value functions",
       x = "p", 
       y= "w(p)") + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
  theme_minimal() 
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
719

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
720
# References