BlavatskyyP. R.PogrebnaG. (2010). Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 25, 963–986. doi:10.1002/jae.1116
2.
BroomellS. B.BhatiaS. (2014). Parameter recovery for decision modeling using choice data. Decision, 1, 252–274. doi:10.1037/dec0000020
DaiJ.BusemeyerJ. R. (2014). A probabilistic, dynamic, and attribute-wise model of intertemporal choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1489–1514. doi:10.1037/a0035976
5.
DonkinC.NewellB. R.KalishM.DunnJ. C.NosofskyR. M. (2015). Identifying strategy use in category learning tasks: A case for more diagnostic data and models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 933–948. doi:10.1037/xlm0000083
6.
ElliottG.GhanemD.KrügerF. (2016). Forecasting conditional probabilities of binary outcomes under misspecification. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98, 742–755. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00564
7.
EricsonK. M. M.WhiteJ. M.LaibsonD.CohenJ. D. (2015). Money earlier or later? Simple heuristics explain intertemporal choices better than delay discounting does. Psychological Science, 26, 826–833. doi:10.1177/0956797615572232
8.
EstesW. K. (1956). The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 134–140. doi:10.1037/h0045156
9.
EstesW. K.MaddoxW. T. (2005). Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 403–408. doi:10.3758/BF03193784
10.
GneitingT. (2011). Making and evaluating point forecasts. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106, 746–762. doi:10.1198/jasa.2011.r10138
11.
GreenL.MyersonJ. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 769–792. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769
12.
JohnsonE. J.Schulte-MecklenbeckM.WillemsenM. C. (2008). Process models deserve process data: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review, 115, 263–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.263
13.
LakatosI. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research. In LakatosI.MusgraveA. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 170–196). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009
14.
LuceR. D. (2005). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1959)
15.
MarewskiJ. N.SchoolerL. J. (2011). Cognitive niches: An ecological model of strategy selection. Psychological Review, 118, 393–437. doi:10.1037/a0024143
16.
MazurJ. E. (1987). An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In CommonsM. L.MazurJ. E.NevinJ. A.RachlinH. (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 5. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value (pp. 55–73). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
MyungI. J. (2000). The importance of complexity in model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 190–204. doi:10.1006/jmps.1999.1283
19.
NavarroD. J.PittM. A.MyungI. J. (2004). Assessing the distinguishability of models and the informativeness of data. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 47–84. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2003.11.001
20.
PleskacT. J. (2015). Decision and choice: Luce’s choice axiom. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 895–900). doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.43031-x
21.
RieskampJ. (2008). The probabilistic nature of preferential choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1446–1465. doi:10.1037/a0013646
22.
RieskampJ.OttoP. E. (2006). SSL: A theory of how people learn to select strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 207–236. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.135.2.207
23.
StewartN.ReimersS.HarrisA. J. (2014). On the origin of utility, weighting, and discounting functions: How they get their shapes and how to change their shapes. Management Science, 61, 687–705. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1853
24.
StottH. P. (2006). Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32, 101–130. doi:10.1007/s11166-006-8289-6
25.
SuY.RaoL. L.SunH. Y.DuX. L.LiX.LiS. (2013). Is making a risky choice based on a weighting and adding process? An eye-tracking investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1765–1780. doi:10.1037/a0032861
26.
TurnerB. M.RodriguezC. A.NorciaT. M.McClureS. M.SteyversM. (2016). Why more is better: Simultaneous modeling of EEG, fMRI, and behavioral data. NeuroImage, 128, 96–115. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.12.030
27.
van den BosW.McClureS. M. (2013). Towards a general model of temporal discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99, 58–73. doi:10.1002/jeab.6
28.
WulffD. U.HillsT. T.HertwigR. (2015). How short- and long-run aspirations impact search and choice in decisions from experience. Cognition, 144, 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.006
29.
WulffD. U.PachurT. (2016). Modeling valuations from experience: A comment on Ashby and Rakow (2014). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 158–166. doi:10.1037/xlm0000165
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
