Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 209–222 | Cite as

Computational modelling of switching behaviour in repeated gambles

  • Jiaying Zhao
  • Fintan J. Costello
Article
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

We present a computational model which predicts people’s switching behaviour in repeated gambling scenarios such as the Iowa Gambling Task. This Utility-Caution model suggests that people’s tendency to switch away from an option is due to a utility factor which reflects the probability and the amount of losses experienced compared to gains, and a caution factor which describes the number of choices made consecutively in that option. Using a novel next-choice-prediction method, the Utility-Caution model was tested using two sets of data on the performance of participants in the Iowa Gambling Task. The model produced significantly more accurate predictions of people’s choices than the previous Bayesian expected-utility model and expectancy-valence model.

Keywords

Switching Repeated gambles Iowa gambling task Emotion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow KJ (1965) Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Hahnsson Foundation, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  2. Barron G, Erev I (2003) Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. J Behav Decis Mak 16: 215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Anderson SW (1994) Insensitivity to future consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition 50: 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernoulli D (1967) Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Gregg Press, England (Original work published in 1738)Google Scholar
  5. Bishara AJ, Pleskac TJ, Fridber DJ, Yechiam E, Lucas J, Busemeyer JR, Fin PR, Stout JC (2006) Models of risky decision-making in Marijuana and stimulant users. Unpublished ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  6. Busemeyer JR, Stout JC (2002) A contribution of cognitive decision models to clinical assessment. Psychol Assess 14: 253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coombs CH, Meyer DE (1969) Risk-preference in coin-toss games. J Math Psychol 6: 514–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Even-Dar E, Mannor S, Mansour Y (2002) PAC bounds for multi-armed Bandit and Markov decision processes. In: Fifteenth annual conference on computational learning theory (COLT), pp 255–270Google Scholar
  9. Fum D, Stocco A (2004) Memory emotion and rationality: an ACT-R interpretation for gambling task results. In: Schunn CD, Lovett MC, Lebiere C, Munro P (eds) Proceedings of the sixth international conference on cognitive modelling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 211–216Google Scholar
  10. Gigerenzer G (2007) Gut feelings: the intelligence of the unconscious. Penguin Books Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahn BE, Ratner RK, Kahneman D (1997) Patterns of hedonic consumption over time. Mark Lett 8: 85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1972) Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness. Cogn Psychol 3: 430–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  15. Keren G, Wagenaar WA (1987) Violation of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 13: 387–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levine DS, Mills B, Estrada S (2005) Modeling emotional influences on human decision making under risk. In: Proceedings of internal joint conference on neural networks. IEEE Press, Montreal, pp 1657–1662Google Scholar
  17. Mas-Collel A, Whinston M, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Ratner RK, Herbst KC (2005) When good decisions have bad outcomes: the impact of affect on switching behavior. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 96: 23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ratner RK, Kahn BE, Kahneman D (1999) Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of variety. J Consumer Res 26: 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robbins H (1952) Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bull Am Math Soc 55: 527–535CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Simon HA (1982) Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Stocco A, Fum D (2006) Memory and emotion in the gambling task: the case for independent processes. In: R Sun, N Miyake (eds) Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 2192–2197Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and InformaticsUniversity College DublinBelfield, Dublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations