simulation_study.Rmd 29.4 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
-   This document was created from the commit with the hash `r repro::current_hash()`.
30

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
31
32
# Abstract

33
34
35
Synthetic choice data from so-called decisions from experience is generated by applying different strategies of sample integration to a series of choice problems between two prospects.
The synthetic data is explored for characteristic choice patterns produced by these strategies under varying structures of the environment (prospect features) and aspects of the sampling- and decision behavior.
We start our argument by giving a probability theoretic account of prospects, sampling, and sample integration and derive assumptions about the choice patterns that result from different integration strategies if applied.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
36
37
38

# Summary

39
Provide short summary of simulation results.
40

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
41
# Introduction
42

43
## Prospects as Probability Spaces
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
44

45
Let a prospect be a *probability space* $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)$ [@kolmogorovFoundationsTheoryProbability1950; @georgiiStochasticsIntroductionProbability2008, for an accessible introduction].
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
46

47
$\Omega$ is the *sample space* containing a finite set of possible outcomes 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
48

49
50
51
$$\begin{equation}
\omega_i = \{\omega_1, ..., \omega_n\} \in \Omega
\end{equation}$$ 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
52

53
$\mathscr{F}$ is a set of subsets of $\Omega$, i.e., the *event space*
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
54

55
56
57
$$\begin{equation}
A_i = \{A_1, ..., A_n\} \in \mathscr{F}
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
58

59
where
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
60

61
62
63
$$\begin{equation}
\mathscr{F} \subset \mathscr{P}(\Omega)
\end{equation}$$
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
64

65
$\mathscr{P}(\Omega)$ denotes the power set of $\Omega$. 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
66

67
$P$ is a *probability mass function* (PMF) which maps the event space to the set of real numbers in $[0, 1]$ 
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114

$$\begin{equation}
P: \mathscr{F} \mapsto [0,1]
\end{equation}$$

by assigning each $\omega_i \in \Omega$ a probability of $0 \leq p_i \leq 1$ with $P(\Omega) = 1$.

## Random Processes in Sequential Sampling 

In research on the decision theory, a standard paradigm is the choice between $n \geq 2$ monetary prospects (hereafter indexed with j), where $\omega_{ij} \in \Omega_j$ are monetary outcomes, gains and/or losses respectively.
$P_j$ is then the probability measure which assigns each $\omega_{ij}$ a probability with which they occur. 
In such a choice paradigm, agents are asked to evaluate the prospects and build a preference for, i.e., choose, either one of them. 
It is common to make a rather crude distinction between two variants of this evaluation process [cf. @hertwigDescriptionExperienceGap2009]. 
For decisions from description (DfD), agents are provided a full symbolic description of the triples $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_j$.
For decision from experience (DfE; e.g., @hertwigDecisionsExperienceEffect2004), the probability triples are not described but must be explored by the means of *sampling*. 

To provide a formal definition of sampling in risky or uncertain choice, we make use of random variables, functions which build the foundation of the random processes decision theory is concerned with but which are rarely explicated. 
Thus, if for each

$$\begin{equation}
\omega_{i} \in \Omega: p(\omega_{i}) \neq 1
\end{equation}$$

we refer to the respective prospect as *"risky"*, where risky describes the fact that if agents would choose the prospect and any of the outcomes $\omega_{i}$ must occur, none of these outcomes will occur with certainty but according to the probability measure $P$. 
It is acceptable to speak of the occurrence of $\omega_{i}$ as the realization of a random variable iff the latter is defined as the function 

$$\begin{equation}
X: (\Omega, \mathscr{F})  \mapsto (\Omega', \mathscr{F'})
\end{equation}$$

where $(\Omega', \mathscr{F'})$ is a measurable image of $(\Omega, \mathscr{F})$. 
I.e., $X$ maps any event $A_i \in \mathscr{F}$ to a quantity $A'_i \in \mathscr{F'}$ and we denote the latter as the realization of the random variable $X$

$$\begin{equation}
A_i \in  \mathscr{F}: X(A_i) \Rightarrow A'_i \in \mathscr{F'}
\end{equation}$$

However, to allow $\omega_{i}$ to be a realization of a random variable defined on $(\Omega, \mathscr{F})$, we must also set 

$$\begin{equation}
\Omega = \mathscr{F} = \mathscr{F'}
\end{equation}$$

Given this restriction, we define a realization of the described random variable as a *single sample* and any systematic approach to generate a sequence of single samples from $n \geq 2$ prospects as a sampling strategy [see also @hillsInformationSearchDecisions2010]. 
Because for a sufficiently large number of single samples from a given prospect the relative frequencies of $\omega_{i}$ approximate their probabilities in $p_i \in P$, sampling in principle allows to explore a prospects probability space. 

So far, we used the random variable defined on a prospect's triple $(\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)$ and the restriction $\Omega = \mathscr{F'}$ solely to provide a probability theoretic definition of a single sample.
115
However, since in the decision literature the stochastic occurrence of the raw outcomes in $\Omega$ is often treated as the event of interest, it should be justified to state that this restricted stochastic model is abundantly but implicitly assumed to underlay the evaluation processes of agents. 
116
We do not contend that this model is not adequate but rather empirically warranted and mathematically convenient because of the measurable nature of monetary outcomes. 
117
However, in line with the literature that deviates from utility models and its derivatives [@heOntologyDecisionModels2020, for an ontology of decision models], we propose that the above restricted model is not the only suitable for describing the random processes agents are interested in, when building a preference between risky prospects, from experience or sampling respectively.
118

119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
How to construct alternative stochastic models underlying DfE between risky prospects? 
We start from the assumption that agents do not make random choices but base their decisions on the information provided by the prospects, which is readily described by their probability triples. 
Thus, we may define a decision variable $D$ as

$$\begin{equation}
D := f((\Omega, \mathscr{F}, P)_j)
\end{equation}$$

irrespective of the information $f$ utilizes and how.
Although in principle many models for $f$ were proposed and tested in the decision literature, in DfE we can restrict the model to the case where decisions are based on single samples generated from the prospect triples.


Although in principle many models for $f$ were proposed and tested in the decision literature, we can use the general (unrestricted) model of the random variable from above as a starting point but now interpret the image $(\Omega', \mathscr{F'})$ as a decision variable. 
This allows us to depart from the standard model of the random process 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
133

134

135
use the general (unrestricted) model of the random variable from above as a starting point but now interpret the image $(\Omega', \mathscr{F'})$ as a decision variable. 
136
137


linushof's avatar
linushof committed
138
139
# Method

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
140
## Test set
141

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
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.
151

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
152
153
154
```{r message=FALSE}
gambles <- read_csv("data/gambles/sr_subset.csv")
gambles %>% kable()
155
156
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
157
## Model Parameters
158

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
159
**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
160
$s$ is varied between .1 to 1 in increments of .1.
161

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
162
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
163
Sample statistics are sums over outcomes (comprehensive strategy) and sums over wins (piecewise strategy), respectively.
164

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
165
166
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.
167

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
168
```{r message=FALSE}
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
# 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
177
choices <- read_csv("data/choices/choices.csv", col_types = cols)
178
179
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
180
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
181

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
182
# Results
183

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
184
185
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.
186
187

```{r}
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
188
189
190
# remove choices where prospects were not attended
choices <- choices %>%
  filter(!(is.na(a_ev_exp) | is.na(b_ev_exp)))
191
192
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
193
194
195
196
197
```{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
198

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
199
Removing the respective trials, we are left with `r nrow(choices)` choices.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
200

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
201
## Sample Size
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
202

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
203
204
205
206
207
208
```{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")
209
210
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
211
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.
212

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
213
### Boundary type and boundary value (a)
214

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
215
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
216

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
217
218
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
219
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
220
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all s values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
221

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
222
223
samples_piecewise %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
224
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
225
226
227
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
228
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
229
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
230
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
231
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
232
  theme_minimal()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
233
```
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
234

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
235
236
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
237
  group_by(boundary, a) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
238
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
239

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
240
241
samples_comprehensive %>%
  ggplot(aes(a, n_med, color = a)) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
242
  geom_jitter(alpha = .5, size = 2) +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
243
244
245
  geom_point(data = group_med, aes(y = group_med), size = 3) +
  facet_wrap(~boundary) + 
  scale_color_viridis() + 
246
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
247
       x ="a", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
248
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
249
       col="a") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
250
  theme_minimal()
251
252
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
253
### Switching probability (s)
254

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
255
256
257
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
258

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
259
260
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_piecewise %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
261
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
262
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
263

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
264
265
266
267
268
269
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() + 
270
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
271
       x ="s", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
272
       y="Sample Size", 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
273
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
274
275
276
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
277
278
279
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
280

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
281
282
```{r message=FALSE}
group_med <- samples_comprehensive %>%
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
283
  group_by(boundary, s) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
284
  summarise(group_med = median(n_med)) # to get the median across all a values
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
285

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
286
287
288
289
290
291
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() + 
292
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
293
294
295
       x ="s",
       y = "Sample Size", 
       col="s") + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
296
297
298
  theme_minimal()
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
299
## Choice Behavior
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
300

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
301
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
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
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
314
315
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
316
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
317

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
318
### False Response Rates
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
319

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
320
321
322
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates_piecewise <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "piecewise")
fr_rates_comprehensive <- fr_rates %>% filter(strategy == "comprehensive")
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
323
```
324

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
325
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
326
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
327

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
328
329
330
331
332
333
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
  group_by(strategy, boundary, rare) %>% 
  summarise(min = min(rate),
            max = max(rate)) %>% 
  kable()
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
334
335
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
336
The heatmaps below show the false response rates for all strategy-parameter combinations.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
337
338
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
339
As indicated by the larger range of false response rates, the effects of rare events are considerably larger for piecewise integration.
340

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
```{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() 
355
356
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
```{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
372

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
373
374
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
375
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "absolute") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
  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
391
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive", boundary == "relative") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
  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() 
403
404
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
405
#### Switching Probability (s) and Boundary Value (a)
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
406

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
407
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
408

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
409
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
410

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
```{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() 
```
426

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
427
428
```{r message=FALSE}
fr_rates %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
429
  filter(strategy == "comprehensive") %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
430
431
432
433
434
435
  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() + 
436
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
437
438
439
440
       x = "s", 
       y= "% False Responses", 
       color = "a") + 
  theme_minimal() 
441
442
```

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
443
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
444
Accordingly, switching probability is positively related to false response rates.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
445
446
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.
447

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
448
449
450
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
451
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.
452

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
### 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.

477
#### Piecewise Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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

```{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() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_piecewise %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w)) + 
512
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
513
514
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
515
516
517
518
519
  labs(title = "Piecewise Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{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() 
```

```{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, 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() 
```

596
#### Comprehensive Integration
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
597
598
599
600

##### Weighting function w(p)

We start by plotting the weighting curves for all parameter combinations under piecewise integration.
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
601

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
```{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) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
628
629
       y= "w(p)") + 
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
630
631
632
633
634
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
635
636
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
637
638
639
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
       x = "p", 
640
641
642
       y= "w(p)", 
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
  ggplot(aes(p, w, color = s)) + 
  geom_path() +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0, slope = 1, color = "red", size = 1) +
651
  facet_wrap(~a) + 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
652
  labs(title = "Comprehensive Integration: Weighting functions",
653
654
       x = "p",
       y= "w(p)",
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
       color = "Switching Probability") + 
  scale_color_viridis() +
  theme_minimal() 
```

```{r}
cpt_curves_comprehensive %>% 
662
  filter(s >= .7) %>% 
linushof's avatar
linushof committed
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
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
  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(~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
733

linushof's avatar
linushof committed
734
# References