Travel decision reversals paradox of competitive metro lines: The Equate-to-differentiate Theory Interpretation

Based on the equate-to-differentiate theory, this paper studies the paradox of preference reversal and choice reversal in traffic decision-making in parallel sections of Chengdu Metro Line No.2 and No.4. Travel decision reversals: preference reversals phenomenon (PRP) and choice reversals phenomenon (CRP) are found in the travel investigation for Chengdu Metro Line No.2 and No.4, and the reversals cannot be well explained by random error. Through experimental design of cautious control, the existence of these phenomena is confirmed. This paper establishes the judgment dimension system of option attributes, and designs three groups of psychological experiment in certain, uncertain and risk scenarios. Data analysis shows that PRP and CRP can be explained by the equate-to-differentiate interpretation. The phenomena of reversal are not due to the fact that preference and choice really reverses, but the variable strategic process. The equate-to-differentiate interpretation shows good consistency in the experiments and can predict and explain the preference and choice reversal of travel decision. At last, a comparative analysis which compares the results of the two models of the decision field theory is made and finally the conclusion is obtained.

Modeling Choice Paradoxes Under Risk: From Prospect Theories to Sampling-Based Accounts

Important developments in the study of decision making have been based on theestablishment and testing of choice paradoxes (e.g., Allais’) that reject different theories (e.g., Expected Utility Theory). One of the most popular and celebrated models in the literature, Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), has managed to retain its status despite a growing body of empirical evidence stemming from a collection of choice paradoxes that reject it. Two alternative models, Transfer of Attention Exchange (TAX) and an extension of Decision Field Theory (DFTe), have been proposed as possible alternatives to CPT. To date, no study has directly compared these three models within the context of a large set of lottery problems that tests different choice paradoxes. The present study accomplishes this by using a large and diverse set of lottery problems, involving both potential gains and losses. Our results support the presence and robustness of a set of ‘strong’ choice paradoxes that reject CPT irrespective of its parametric form. Model comparison results show that DFTe provides the best account for the present set of lottery problems, as it is able to accommodate the choice data at large in a parsimonious fashion. The success of DFTe shows that many behavioral phenomena, including paradoxes that CPT cannot account for, can be successfully captured by a simple noisy-sampling process. Overall, our results suggest that researchers should move away from CPT, and focus their efforts on alternative models such as DFTe.