The random thickness of indifference

Duffy, Sean and Smith, John (2024): The random thickness of indifference.

Abstract

Standard random utility models can account for stochastic choice. However, a common implication is that the realized utilities are equal with probability zero. This knife-edge aspect implies that indifference is thin because arbitrarily small changes in utility will break indifference. Semiorders can represent preferences where indifference is thick, however, choice is not random. We design an incentivized binary line length judgment experiment to better understand how indifference can be both thick and random. In the 2-choice treatment, subjects select one of the lines. In the 3-choice treatment, subjects select one of the lines or can express indifference, which directs the computer to "flip a coin" to decide. In every trial, there is a longer line and subjects were told this fact. For each of our line pairs, subjects make 5 decisions in the 2-choice treatment and 5 decisions in the 3-choice treatment. In the line pair with the smallest length difference, 49.7% of 2-choice treatment trials are optimal. For this line pair in the 3-choice treatment, only 1 out of 113 subjects selected indifference on all 5 available trials. There are well-known predictions that optimal choices will have shorter response times than suboptimal choices (Fudenberg, Strack, and Strzalecki, 2018) and we find evidence of this in our dataset. However, not much seems to be known about the response times and indifference. In the 3-choice treatment, we find that indifference choices have longer response times than suboptimal choices. We find that indifference choices are associated with risk aversion and a measure of the beliefs of the favorability of the coin flip. We do not find that indifference choices become more likely across trials, however we find the likelihood of selecting the longer line--in both 2-choice and 3-choice treatments--are decreasing across trials. We hope that the results of our experiment can help inform models of choice where indifference is both thick and random.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: choice theory, judgment, indifference, memory, search
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

References

Agranov, Marina, Healy, Paul J., and Nielsen, Kirby (2023): "Stable Randomisation," Economic Journal, 133(655), 2553--2579.

Agranov, Marina and Ortoleva, Pietro (2017): "Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization," Journal of Political Economy, 125(1), 40--68.

Agranov, Marina and Ortoleva, Pietro (2023): "Ranges of randomization," Review of Economics and Statistics, forthcoming.

Alós-Ferrer, Carlos, Fehr, Ernst, and Netzer, Nick (2021): "Time will tell: Recovering preferences when choices are noisy," Journal of Political Economy, 129(6), 1828--1877.

Alós-Ferrer, Carlos and Garagnani, Michele (2021): "Choice consistency and strength of preference," Economics Letters, 198, 109672.

Alós-Ferrer, Carlos and Garagnani, Michele (2022a): "Strength of preference and decisions under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 64, 309--329.

Alós-Ferrer, Carlos and Garagnani, Michele (2022b): "The gradual nature of economic errors," Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 200, 55--66.

Arts, Sara, Ong, Qiyan, and Qiu, Jianying (2024): "Measuring decision confidence," Experimental Economics, 27, 582--603.

Becker, Gordon M., DeGroot, Morris H., and Marschak, Jacob (1963): "Stochastic models of choice behavior," Behavioral Science, 8(1), 41--55.

Bowers, Dawn and Heilman, Kenneth M. (1980): "Pseudoneglect: Effects of hemispace on a tactile line bisection task," Neuropsychologia, 18(4-5), 491--498.

Brañas-Garza, Pablo and Smith, John (2024): "Imperfect perception and stochastic choice in experiments," Elements in Behavioural and Experimental Economics, Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, J. McKeen (1902): "The time of perception as a measure of differences in intensity," Philosophische Studien, 19, 63--68.

Cerreia-Vioglio, Simone, Dillenberger, David, Ortoleva, Pietro, and Riella, Gil (2019): "Deliberately stochastic," American Economic Review, 109(7), 2425--2445.

Cettolin, Elena and Riedl, Arno (2019): "Revealed preferences under uncertainty: Incomplete preferences and preferences for randomization," Journal of Economic Theory, 181, 547--585.

Charles, Jennifer, Sahraie, Arash, and McGeorge, Peter (2007): "Hemispatial asymmetries in judgment of stimulus size," Perception and Psychophysics, 69, 687--698.

Costa-Gomes, Miguel. A., Cueva, Carlos, Gerasimou, Georgios, and Tejiščák, Matúš (2022): "Choice, deferral, and consistency," Quantitative Economics, 13(3), 1297--1318.

Crosetto, Paolo and Gaudeul, Alexia (2016): " A monetary measure of the strength and robustness of the attraction effect," Economics Letters, 149, 38--43.

Crosetto, Paolo and Gaudeul, Alexia (2024): "Fast Then Slow: Choice Revisions Drive a Decline in the Attraction Effect," Management Science, 70(6), 3711--3733.

Debreu, Gerard (1958): "Stochastic choice and cardinal utility," Econometrica, 26(3), 440-444.

Duffy, Sean, Gussman, Steven, and Smith, John (2021): "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?" Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 93, 101708.

Duffy, Sean and Smith, John (2023): "An economist and a psychologist form a line: What can imperfect perception of length tell us about stochastic choice?" Working paper, Rutgers University-Camden.

Duffy, Sean and Smith, John (2024): "Stochastic choice and imperfect perception of line lengths: What is hiding in the noise?" Working paper, Rutgers University-Camden.

Falmagne, Jean-Claude (1983): "A random utility model for a belief function," Synthese, 57(1), 35--48.

Falmagne, Jean-Claude (2002): Elements of Psychophysical Theory. Oxford University Press: New York.

Fechner, Gustav Theodor (1860): Elemente der Psychophysik. (Elements of psychophysics, translated 1966. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.)

Feldman, Paul and Rehbeck, John (2022): "Revealing a preference for mixtures: An experimental study of risk," Quantitative Economics, 13(2), 761--786.

Frederick, Shane (2005): "Cognitive reflection and decision making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25--42.

Fudenberg, Drew, Strack, Philipp, and Strzalecki, Tomasz (2018): "Speed, accuracy, and the optimal timing of choices," American Economic Review, 108(12), 3651--3684.

Gerasimou, Georgios (2021): "Simple preference intensity comparisons," Journal of Economic Theory, 192, 105199.

Gerasimou, Georgios (2024): "Towards eliciting weak or incomplete preferences in the lab: a model-rich approach," Working paper, University of Glasgow.

Gescheider, George A. (1997): Psychophysics: The Fundamentals. Routledge Press, New York.

Halevy, Yoram, Walker-Jones, David, and Zrill, Lanny (2023): "Difficult decisions," Working paper, University of Toronto and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Henmon, V. A. C. (1911): "The relation of the time of a judgment to its accuracy," Psychological Review, 18(3), 186--201.

Holt, Charles A. and Laury, Susan K. (2002): "Risk aversion and incentive effects," American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644--1655.

Horan, Sean (2021): "Stochastic semi-orders," Journal of Economic Theory, 192: 105171.

Horan, Sean, Manzini, Paola, and Mariotti, Marco (2022): "When is coarseness not a curse? Comparative statics of the coarse random utility model." Journal of Economic Theory, 202, 105445.

Horan, Sean, Manzini, Paola, and Mariotti, Marco (2022): "When is coarseness not a curse? Comparative statics of the coarse random utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, 202, 105445.

Kellogg, W. N. (1931): "The time of judgment in psychometric measures," American Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 65--86.

Kramer, Karen M. and Budescu, David V. (2005): "Exploring Ellsberg's paradox in vague-vague cases," In Experimental Business Research: Marketing, Accounting and Cognitive Perspectives Volume III, (Eds.) Zwick R. and Rapoport A., Springer, 131--154.

Laming, Donald and Laming, Janet (1992): "F. Hegelmaier: On memory for the length of a line," Psychological Research, 54(4), 233--239.

Luce, R. Duncan (1956): "Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination," Econometrica, 24(2), 178--191.

Luce, R. Duncan and Suppes, Patrick (1965): "Preference, Utility and Subjective Probability," In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, (Eds.) Luce, R. Duncan, Bush, Robert R., Galanter, Eugene, Wiley, New York, 3, 249--410.

Lunn, Peter D. and Somerville, Jason (2021): "Consumers' ability to identify a surplus when returns to attributes are nonlinear," Judgment and Decision Making, 16(5), 1186--1220.

MacCrimmon, Kenneth R. and Toda, Masanao (1969): "The experimental determination of indifference curves," Review of Economic Studies, 36(4), 433--451.

Mosteller, Frederick and Nogee, Philip (1951): "An experimental measurement of utility," Journal of Political Economy, 59(5), 371--404.

Münsterberg, Hugo (1894): "Studies from the Harvard Psychological Laboratory: (I)," Psychological Review, 1(1), 34--60.

Nicholls, Michael ER, Bradshaw, John L., and Mattingley, Jason B. (1999): "Free-viewing perceptual asymmetries for the judgement of brightness, numerosity and size," Neuropsychologia, 37(3), 307--314.

Ok, Efe A. and Tserenjigmid, Gerelt (2022): "Indifference, indecisiveness, experimentation, and stochastic choice," Theoretical Economics, 17(2), 651--686.

Olschewski, Sebastian and Scheibehenne, Benjamin (2024): "What's in a Sample? How Sampling Information Affects Epistemic Uncertainty and Risk-Taking," Cognitive Psychology, 149, 101642.

Payzan-LeNestour, Elise and Woodford, Michael (2022): "Outlier blindness: A neurobiological foundation for neglect of financial risk," Journal of Financial Economics, 143(3), 1316--1343.

Permana, Yudistira (2020): "Why do people prefer randomisation? An experimental investigation," Theory and Decision, 88(1), 73--96.

Regenwetter, Michel and Davis-Stober, Clintin P. (2012): "Behavioral variability of choices versus structural inconsistency of preferences," Psychological Review, 119(2), 408--416.

Roth, Alvin E. (1993): "The early history of experimental economics," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15(2), 184--209.

Rousseas, Stephen W. and Hart, Albert G. (1951): "Experimental verification of a composite indifference map," Journal of Political Economy, 59(4), 288--318.

Smith, Vernon L. (1976): "Experimental economics: Induced value theory," American Economic Review, 66(2), 274--279.

Sopher, Barry and Narramore, J. Mattison (2000): "Stochastic choice and consistency in decision making under risk: An experimental study," Theory and Decision, 48, 323--349.

Thurstone, L. L. (1927): "A law of comparative judgment," Psychological Review, 34(4), 273--286.

Thurstone, L. L. (1931): "The indifference function," Journal of Social Psychology, 2(2), 139--167.

Tversky, Amos and Russo, J. Edward (1969): "Substitutability and similarity in binary choices," Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6(1), 1--12.

Tyson, Christopher J. (2021): "Exponential satisficing," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 13(2), 439--467.

Weber, Ernst (1834): De Tactu. (The Sense of Touch, translated 1978. Academic Press, New York.)