A genetic algorithm for analyzing choice behavior with mixed decision strategies

ABSTRACT

In the field of decision-making a fundamental problem is how to uncover people's choice behavior. While choices them- selves are often observable, our underlying decision strategies determining these choices are not entirely understood. Previous research defined a number of decision strategies and conjectured that people do not apply only one strategy but switch strategies during the decision process. To the best of our knowledge, empirical evidence for the latter conjecture is missing. This is why we monitored the purchase decisions 624 consumers shopping online. We study how many of the observed choices can be explained by the existing strategies in their pure form, how many decisions can be explained if we account for switching behavior, and investigate switching behavior in detail. Since accounting for switching leads to a large search space of possible mixed decision strategies, we apply a genetic algorithm to find the set of mixed decision strategies which best explains the observed behavior. The results show that mixed strategies are used more often than pure ones and that a set of four mixed strategies is able to explain 93.9% of choices in a scenario with 4 alternatives and 75.4% of choices in a scenario with 7 alternatives.

REFERENCES

• 1: N.H. Anderson. Algebraic models of perception. In E.C. Carterette and M.P. Friedman, editors, Handbook of perception. Academic Press, New York, 1974.
• 2: G.J. Cook. An empirical investigation of information search strategies with implications for decision support system design. Decision Sciences, 24(3):683--697, May-Jun 1993.
• 3: R.M. Dawes. The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34:571--582, 1979.
• 4: P.C. Fishburn. Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: A survey. Management Science, 20(11):1442--1471, 1974.
• 5: J.K. Ford, N. Schmitt, S.L. Schechtman, B.M. Hults, and M.L. Doherty. Process tracing methods: contributions, problems, and neglected research questions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1):75--117, Feb 1989.
• 6: J. Payne, J.R. Bettman, and E.J. Johnson. The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.
• 7: J.W. Payne. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2):366--387, 1976.
• 8: J. Pfeiffer, R. Riedl, and F. Rothlauf. On the relationship between interactive decision aids and decision strategies: A theoretical analysis. In H.R. Hansen, D. Karagiannis, and H.-G. Fill, editors, Proceedings of the 9th internationale Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2009.
• 9: Franz Rothlauf , Daniel Schunk , Jella Pfeiffer, Classification of human decision behavior: finding modular decision rules with genetic algorithms, Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, June 25-29, 2005, Washington DC, USA [doi>10.1145/1068009.1068346]
• 10: O. Svenson. Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23:86--112, 1979.
• 11: A. Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79:281--299, 1972.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.8 Problem Solving, Control Methods, and Search
          Subjects: Heuristic methods

General Terms:
Algorithms, Economics, Human Factors

Keywords:
choice task, consumer behavior, decision making, decision strategy, e-commerce, genetic algorithm