Advertisement

A statistical test for the optimality of deliberative time allocation

  • Rahul BhuiEmail author
Theoretical Review

Abstract

Whenever we make a choice, we must also decide how much time to spend making it. Many theories of decision-making crucially assume that this deliberation perfectly balances the costs of time expenditure and the benefits of better decisions. However, might we “overthink” or “underthink” decisions? Here, I propose and implement a method to precisely determine whether people are optimally spending their time on deliberation, accounting for individual preferences. This test evaluates the consistency of underlying preferences for time when incentives change, which is a necessary condition for optimality. This enables a more comprehensive analysis of rationality in a variety of contexts. I demonstrate how the test can reveal departures from optimality using two motion discrimination experiments in which I vary task difficulty and monetary incentives.

Keywords

Decision making Response time Optimality Speed-accuracy tradeoff Sequential sampling models 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Colin Camerer, Jaron Colas, Hayley Dorfman, Sam Gershman, Taisuke Imai, Ian Krajbich, and Tomasz Strzalecki for helpful comments and discussions. Funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Harvard Mind Brain Behavior Interfaculty Initiative is gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary material

13423_2018_1555_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (460 kb)
(PDF 460 KB)

References

  1. Afriat, S. N. (1967). The construction of utility functions from expenditure data. International Economic Review, 8(1), 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J., Blackwell, D., & Girshick, M. A. (1949). Bayes and minimax solutions of sequential decision problems. Econometrica, 17(3/4), 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balcı, F., Simen, P., Niyogi, R., Saxe, A., Hughes, J. A., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2011). Acquisition of decision-making criteria: Reward rate ultimately beats accuracy. Attention Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(2), 640–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhui, R. (2018). Falling behind: Time and expectations based reference dependence. Decision. Advance online publication,  https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000102.
  5. Binmore, K. (2009) Rational decisions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bogacz, R., Brown, E., Moehlis, J., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The physics of optimal decision-making: A formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. Psychological Review, 113(4), 700.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bogacz, R., Hu, P. T., Holmes, P. J., & Cohen, J. D. (2010). Do humans produce the speed–accuracy trade-off that maximizes reward rate? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 863–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brand, A., & Bradley, M. T. (2012). Assessing the effects of technical variance on the statistical outcomes of web experiments measuring response times. Social Science Computer Review, 30(3), 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Britten, K. H., Shadlen, M. N., Newsome, W. T., & Movshon, A. J. (1992). The analysis of visual motion: A comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. Journal of Neuroscience, 12(12), 4745–4765.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, S., & Heathcote, A. (2003). QMLE: Fast, robust, and efficient estimation of distribution functions based on quantiles. Behavior Research Methods Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 485–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busemeyer, J. R., & Townsend, J. T. (1993). Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision-making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3), 432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chabris, C. F., Morris, C. L., Taubinsky, D., Laibson, D., & Schuldt, J. P. (2009). The allocation of time in decision-making. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2-3), 628–637.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chetverikov, A., & Upravitelev, P. (2016). Online versus offline: The Web as a medium for response time data collection. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 1086–1099.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clithero, J.A. (2016). Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models. SSRN Working Paper 2795871.Google Scholar
  15. Clithero, J. A. (2018). Improving out-of-sample predictions using response times and a model of the decision process. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 148, 344–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawford, I., & De Rock, B. (2014). Empirical revealed preference. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 503–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLOS One, 8(3), e57410.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Leeuw, J.R. (2015). jsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Leeuw, J.R., & Motz, B.A. (2016). Psychophysics in a Web browser? Comparing response times collected with JavaScript and Psychophysics Toolbox in a visual search task. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 1–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Domenech, P., & Dreher, J.-C. (2010). Decision threshold modulation in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(43), 14305–14317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Donders, F.C. (1869/1969). On the speed of mental processes. Acta Psychologica, 30, 412–431.Google Scholar
  22. Douglas, R.M., Neve, A., Quittenbaum, J.P., Alam, N.M., & Prusky, G.T. (2006). Perception of visual motion coherence by rats and mice. Vision Research, 46(18), 2842–2847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drugowitsch, J., DeAngelis, G.C., Angelaki, D.E., & Pouget, A. (2015). Tuning the speed–accuracy trade-off to maximize reward rate in multisensory decision-making. eLife, 4, e06678.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drugowitsch, J., DeAngelis, G.C., Klier, E.M., Angelaki, D.E., & Pouget, A. (2014). Optimal multisensory decision-making in a reaction-time task. eLife, 3, e03005.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Drugowitsch, J., Moreno-Bote, R., Churchland, A.K., Shadlen, M.N., & Pouget, A. (2012). The cost of accumulating evidence in perceptual decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(11), 3612–3628.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fudenberg, D., Strack, P., & Strzalecki, T. (2018). Speed, accuracy, and the optimal timing of choices. American Economic Review, 108(12), 3651–3684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gintis, H. (2009). The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Büchel, C. (2012). Deciding when to decide: time-variant sequential sampling models explain the emergence of value-based decisions in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(31), 10686–10698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gluth, S., Rieskamp, J., & Büchel, C. (2013). Classic EEG motor potentials track the emergence of value-based decisions. NeuroImage, 79, 394–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gold, J.I., & Shadlen, M.N. (2002). Banburismus and the brain: decoding the relationship between sensory stimuli, decisions, and reward. Neuron, 36(2), 299–308.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Gold, J.I., & Shadlen, M.N. (2007). The neural basis of decision-making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–574.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, N., Biele, G.P., & Heekeren, H.R. (2012). Changes in neural connectivity underlie decision threshold modulation for reward maximization. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(43), 14942– 14950.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Hanes, D.P., & Schall, J.D. (1996). Neural control of voluntary movement initiation. Science, 274(5286), 427–430.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Cousineau, D. (2004). QMPE: Estimating Lognormal, Wald, And Weibull RT distributions with a parameter-dependent lower bound. Behavior Research Methods Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D.J.K. (2002). Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hick, W.E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hilbig, B.E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab-versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1718–1724.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Houthakker, H.S. (1950). Revealed preference and the utility function. Economica, 17(66), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jensen, A.R. (2006) Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  40. Kagel, J.H., Battalio, R.C., & Green, L. (1995) Economic choice theory: An experimental analysis of animal behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karşılar, H, Simen, P., Papadakis, S., & Balcı, F (2014). Speed accuracy trade-off under response deadlines. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 248.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, J.-N., & Shadlen, M.N. (1999). Neural correlates of a decision in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the macaque. Nature Neuroscience, 2(2), 176–185.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Krajbich, I., & Rangel, A. (2011). Multialternative drift-diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(33), 13852–13857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10), 1292–1298.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Krajbich, I., Hare, T., Bartling, B., Morishima, Y., & Fehr, E. (2015). A common mechanism underlying food choice and social decisions. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(10), e1004371.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krajbich, I., Lu, D., Camerer, C., & Rangel, A. (2012). The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 193.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krajbich, I., Oud, B., & Fehr, E. (2014). Benefits of neuroeconomic modeling: New policy interventions and predictors of preference. American Economic Review, 104(5), 501–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laming, D.R.J. (1968) Information theory of choice-reaction times. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. Milosavljevic, M., Malmaud, J., Huth, A., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). The drift diffusion model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(6), 437–449.Google Scholar
  50. Moran, R. (2015). Optimal decision making in heterogeneous and biased environments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(1), 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mullen, K.M., Ardia, D., Gil, D.L., Windover, D., & Cline, J. (2011). DEOptim: An R package for global optimization by differential evolution. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(6), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Myung, I.J., & Busemeyer, J.R. (1989). Criterion learning in a deferred decision-making task. American Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Newsome, W.T., Britten, K.H., & Movshon, A.J. (1989). Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision. Nature, 341(6237), 52–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nguyen, A.P., Spetch, M.L., Crowder, N.A., Winship, I.R., Hurd, P.L., & Wylie, D.R.W. (2004). A dissociation of motion and spatial-pattern vision in the avian telencephalon: Implications for the evolution of visual streams. Journal of Neuroscience, 24(21), 4962–4970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oud, B., Krajbich, I., Miller, K., Cheong, J.H., Botvinick, M., & Fehr, E. (2016). Irrational time allocation in decision-making. Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1822), 20151439.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rajananda, S., Lau, H., & Odegaard, B. (2018). A random-dot kinematogram for web-based vision research. Journal of Open Research Software, 6(1), 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rand, D.G., Greene, J.D., & Nowak, M.A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489 (7416), 427–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ratcliff, R. (2002). A diffusion model account of response time and accuracy in a brightness discrimination task: Fitting real data and failing to fit fake but plausible data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 278–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ratcliff, R., & Rouder, J.N. (2000). A diffusion model account of masking in two-choice letter identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(1), 127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Ratcliff, R., Cherian, A., & Segraves, M. (2003). A comparison of macaque behavior and superior colliculus neuronal activity to predictions from models of two-choice decisions. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90(3), 1392–1407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reimers, S., & Stewart, N. (2015). Presentation and response timing accuracy in Adobe Flash and HTML5/javascript Web experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 309–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Robertson, T. (1978). Testing for and against an order restriction on multinomial parameters. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73(361), 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Robertson, T., Wright, F.T., & Dykstra, R. (1988) Order restricted statistical inference. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Rubinstein, A. (2007). Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: A study of response times. Economic Journal, 117 (523), 1243–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Samuelson, P.A. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica, 5(17), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shadlen, M.N., & Newsome, W.T. (2001). Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86(4), 1916–1936.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shepard, R.N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Simcox, T., & Fiez, J.A. (2014). Collecting response times using Amazon Mechanical Turk and Adobe Flash. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 95–111.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simen, P., Cohen, J.D., & Holmes, P. (2006). Rapid decision threshold modulation by reward rate in a neural network. Neural Networks, 19(8), 1013–1026.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simen, P., Contreras, D., Buck, C., Hu, P., Holmes, P., & Cohen, J.D. (2009). Reward rate optimization in two-alternative decision making: Empirical tests of theoretical predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(6), 1865.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Slote, J., & Strand, J.F. (2016). Conducting spoken word recognition research online: Validation and a new timing method. Behavior Research Methods, 48(2), 553–566.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith, P.L., & Ratcliff, R. (2004). Psychology and neurobiology of simple decisions. Trends in Neurosciences, 27(3), 161–168.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Smith, P.L., Ratcliff, R., & Wolfgang, B.J. (2004). Attention orienting and the time course of perceptual decisions: Response time distributions with masked and unmasked displays. Vision Research, 44(12), 1297–1320.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Spiliopoulos, L., & Ortmann, A. (2018). The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics. Experimental Economics, 21(2), 383–433.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Starns, J.J., & Ratcliff, R. (2010). The effects of aging on the speed–accuracy compromise: Boundary optimality in the diffusion model. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 377.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Starns, J.J., & Ratcliff, R. (2012). Age-related differences in diffusion model boundary optimality with both trial-limited and time-limited tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(1), 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Starns, J.J., & Ratcliff, R. (2014). Validating the unequal-variance assumption in recognition memory using response time distributions instead of ROC functions: A diffusion model analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 36–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153(3736), 652–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stone, M. (1960). Models for choice-reaction time. Psychometrika, 25(3), 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tuerlinckx, F., Maris, E., Ratcliff, R., & De Boeck, P. (2001). A comparison of four methods for simulating the diffusion process. Behavior Research Methods Instruments, & Computers, 33(4), 443–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wald, A. (1947) Sequential analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  84. Wald, A., & Wolfowitz, J. (1948). Optimum character of the sequential probability ratio test. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 19(3), 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Webb, R. (2018). The dynamics of stochastic choice. Management Science. Advance online publication,  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2931  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2931.
  86. Wilcox, N.T. (1993). Lottery choice: Incentives, complexity and decision time. Economic Journal, 103(421), 1397–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Woodford, M. (2014). Stochastic choice: an optimizing neuroeconomic model. American Economic Review, 104(5), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zacksenhouse, M., Bogacz, R., & Holmes, P. (2010). Robust versus optimal strategies for two-alternative forced choice tasks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54(2), 230–246.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Psychology and Economics & Center for Brain ScienceHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations