{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/102478"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/102478","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Rationality or irrationality of preferences? Quantitative tests of decision theories","abstract":"To have transitive preferences, for any options x, y, and z, one who prefers x to y and y to z must prefer x to z. Transitivity of preferences is a very fundamental element of utility and plays an important role in many major contemporary theories of decision making under risk or uncertainty. One has to be very careful about claiming violations of transitivity of preferences. In my thesis, I present a comprehensive analysis of several decision heuristics that permit intransitive preferences: the lexicographic semiorder model (Tversky, 1969), the similarity model (Rubinstein, 1988), and perceived relative argument model (PRAM, Loomes, 2010a), as well as several transitive decision theories: the linear order model and 49 versions of Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT, Tversky and Kahneman, 1992a). For each decision theory, I use two kinds of probabilistic specifications to explain choice variability: a distance-based probabilistic specification models preferences as deterministic and response processes as probabilistic, and a mixture specification models preferences as probabilistic and response processes as deterministic. I test these probabilistic models on data sets from different experiments, using both frequentist (Davis-Stober, 2009, Iverson and Falmagne, 1985, Silvapulle and Sen, 2005) and Bayesian (Myung et al., 2005) order-constrained, likelihood-based statistical inference methods. This thesis is one of the largest scale projects for a systematic evaluation of both transitive and intransitive decision theories. The quantitative analyses in this paper consumed about 822,000 CPU hours on Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center’s Blacklight, Greenfield, and Bridges supercomputers, as an Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment project (see also, Towns et al., 2014). Individual model selection using Bayes factors shown extensive heterogeneity across participants and stimulus sets. In general, the overall conclusion is that Cumulative Prospective Theory and Perceived Relative Argument Model was systematically violated, and the intransitive heuristics performed reasonable well.","abstract_html":"To have transitive preferences, for any options x, y, and z, one who prefers x to y and y to z must prefer x to z. Transitivity of preferences is a very fundamental element of utility and plays an important role in many major contemporary theories of decision making under risk or uncertainty. One has to be very careful about claiming violations of transitivity of preferences. In my thesis, I present a comprehensive analysis of several decision heuristics that permit intransitive preferences: the lexicographic semiorder model (Tversky, 1969), the similarity model (Rubinstein, 1988), and perceived relative argument model (PRAM, Loomes, 2010a), as well as several transitive decision theories: the linear order model and 49 versions of Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT, Tversky and Kahneman, 1992a). For each decision theory, I use two kinds of probabilistic specifications to explain choice variability: a distance-based probabilistic specification models preferences as deterministic and response processes as probabilistic, and a mixture specification models preferences as probabilistic and response processes as deterministic. I test these probabilistic models on data sets from different experiments, using both frequentist (Davis-Stober, 2009, Iverson and Falmagne, 1985, Silvapulle and Sen, 2005) and Bayesian (Myung et al., 2005) order-constrained, likelihood-based statistical inference methods. This thesis is one of the largest scale projects for a systematic evaluation of both transitive and intransitive decision theories. The quantitative analyses in this paper consumed about 822,000 CPU hours on Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center’s Blacklight, Greenfield, and Bridges supercomputers, as an Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment project (see also, Towns et al., 2014). Individual model selection using Bayes factors shown extensive heterogeneity across participants and stimulus sets. In general, the overall conclusion is that Cumulative Prospective Theory and Perceived Relative Argument Model was systematically violated, and the intransitive heuristics performed reasonable well.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Guo, Ying"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Regenwetter, Michel","Chang, Hua-Hua","Barbey, Aron","Newman, Daniel","Köhn, Hans-Friedrich"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-02-06T19:36:35Z","date_published":"2019-02-06T19:36:35Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:42Z","subjects":["Quantitative Testing, Decision Making, Hypothesis Testing, Bayes Factor, Cumulative Prospect Theory, Transitivity, Order-Constrained Statistics"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2018 Ying Guo"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/102478","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Regenwetter, Michel","Chang, Hua-Hua","Barbey, Aron","Newman, Daniel","Köhn, Hans-Friedrich"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Guo, Ying"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2019-02-06T19:36:35Z","2018-12-07","2018-12"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Quantitative Testing, Decision Making, Hypothesis Testing, Bayes Factor, Cumulative Prospect Theory, Transitivity, Order-Constrained Statistics"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2018 Ying Guo"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/102478"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["To have transitive preferences, for any options x, y, and z, one who prefers x to y and y to z must prefer x to z. Transitivity of preferences is a very fundamental element of utility and plays an important role in many major contemporary theories of decision making under risk or uncertainty. One has to be very careful about claiming violations of transitivity of preferences. In my thesis, I present a comprehensive analysis of several decision heuristics that permit intransitive preferences: the lexicographic semiorder model (Tversky, 1969), the similarity model (Rubinstein, 1988), and perceived relative argument model (PRAM, Loomes, 2010a), as well as several transitive decision theories: the linear order model and 49 versions of Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT, Tversky and Kahneman, 1992a). For each decision theory, I use two kinds of probabilistic specifications to explain choice variability: a distance-based probabilistic specification models preferences as deterministic and response processes as probabilistic, and a mixture specification models preferences as probabilistic and response processes as deterministic. I test these probabilistic models on data sets from different experiments, using both frequentist (Davis-Stober, 2009, Iverson and Falmagne, 1985, Silvapulle and Sen, 2005) and Bayesian (Myung et al., 2005) order-constrained, likelihood-based statistical inference methods. This thesis is one of the largest scale projects for a systematic evaluation of both transitive and intransitive decision theories. The quantitative analyses in this paper consumed about 822,000 CPU hours on Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center’s Blacklight, Greenfield, and Bridges supercomputers, as an Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment project (see also, Towns et al., 2014). Individual model selection using Bayes factors shown extensive heterogeneity across participants and stimulus sets. In general, the overall conclusion is that Cumulative Prospective Theory and Perceived Relative Argument Model was systematically violated, and the intransitive heuristics performed reasonable well.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2019-02-05 without embargo terms","The student, Ying Guo, accepted the attached license on 2018-12-04 at 21:09.","The student, Ying Guo, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2018-12-04 at 21:55.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2018-12-07 at 07:49.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #13212 on 2019-02-05 at 11:14:58","Made available in DSpace on 2019-02-06T19:36:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 4 GUO-DISSERTATION-2018.pdf: 3562306 bytes, checksum: 30e46ee855c7e4f2aebea6c50ff34095 (MD5) SupplementalFiles.zip: 67371836 bytes, checksum: 87527de0a7bf1ac3c1bdde4ff43442ce (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4205 bytes, checksum: 14b9221dd981877727b1decb2f5be965 (MD5) reprint.pdf: 240883 bytes, checksum: 59e2e37cb20ad9eb48701da1fc07720e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-12-07"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Rationality or irrationality of preferences? Quantitative tests of decision theories"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Regenwetter, Michel","Chang, Hua-Hua","Barbey, Aron","Newman, Daniel","Köhn, Hans-Friedrich"],"dc:creator":["Guo, Ying"],"dc:date":["2019-02-06T19:36:35Z","2018-12-07","2018-12"],"dc:description":["To have transitive preferences, for any options x, y, and z, one who prefers x to y and y to z must prefer x to z. Transitivity of preferences is a very fundamental element of utility and plays an important role in many major contemporary theories of decision making under risk or uncertainty. One has to be very careful about claiming violations of transitivity of preferences. In my thesis, I present a comprehensive analysis of several decision heuristics that permit intransitive preferences: the lexicographic semiorder model (Tversky, 1969), the similarity model (Rubinstein, 1988), and perceived relative argument model (PRAM, Loomes, 2010a), as well as several transitive decision theories: the linear order model and 49 versions of Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT, Tversky and Kahneman, 1992a). For each decision theory, I use two kinds of probabilistic specifications to explain choice variability: a distance-based probabilistic specification models preferences as deterministic and response processes as probabilistic, and a mixture specification models preferences as probabilistic and response processes as deterministic. I test these probabilistic models on data sets from different experiments, using both frequentist (Davis-Stober, 2009, Iverson and Falmagne, 1985, Silvapulle and Sen, 2005) and Bayesian (Myung et al., 2005) order-constrained, likelihood-based statistical inference methods. This thesis is one of the largest scale projects for a systematic evaluation of both transitive and intransitive decision theories. The quantitative analyses in this paper consumed about 822,000 CPU hours on Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center’s Blacklight, Greenfield, and Bridges supercomputers, as an Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment project (see also, Towns et al., 2014). Individual model selection using Bayes factors shown extensive heterogeneity across participants and stimulus sets. In general, the overall conclusion is that Cumulative Prospective Theory and Perceived Relative Argument Model was systematically violated, and the intransitive heuristics performed reasonable well.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2019-02-05 without embargo terms","The student, Ying Guo, accepted the attached license on 2018-12-04 at 21:09.","The student, Ying Guo, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2018-12-04 at 21:55.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2018-12-07 at 07:49.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #13212 on 2019-02-05 at 11:14:58","Made available in DSpace on 2019-02-06T19:36:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 4 GUO-DISSERTATION-2018.pdf: 3562306 bytes, checksum: 30e46ee855c7e4f2aebea6c50ff34095 (MD5) SupplementalFiles.zip: 67371836 bytes, checksum: 87527de0a7bf1ac3c1bdde4ff43442ce (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4205 bytes, checksum: 14b9221dd981877727b1decb2f5be965 (MD5) reprint.pdf: 240883 bytes, checksum: 59e2e37cb20ad9eb48701da1fc07720e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-12-07"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/102478"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2018 Ying Guo"],"dc:subject":["Quantitative Testing, Decision Making, Hypothesis Testing, Bayes Factor, Cumulative Prospect Theory, Transitivity, Order-Constrained Statistics"],"dc:title":["Rationality or irrationality of preferences? Quantitative tests of decision theories"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:42Z"}