IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v133y2017icp373-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using methods from machine learning to evaluate behavioral models of choice under risk and ambiguity

Author

Listed:
  • Peysakhovich, Alexander
  • Naecker, Jeffrey

Abstract

How can behavioral science incorporate tools from machine learning (ML)? We propose that ML models can be used as upper bounds for the “explainable” variance in a given data set and thus serve as upper bounds for the potential power of a theory. We demonstrate this method in the domain of uncertainty. We ask over 600 individuals to make a total of 6000 choices with randomized parameters and compare standard economic models to ML models. In the domain of risk, a version of expected utility that allows for non-linear probability weighting (as in cumulative prospect theory) and individual-level parameters performs as well out-of-sample as ML techniques. By contrast, in the domain of ambiguity, two of the most widely studied models (a linear version of maximin preferences and second order expected utility) fail to compete with the ML methods. We open the “black boxes” of the ML methods and show that under risk we “rediscover” expected utility with probability weighting. However, in the case of ambiguity the form of ambiguity aversion implied by our ML models suggests that there is gain from theoretical work on a portable model of ambiguity aversion. Our results highlight ways in which behavioral scientists can incorporate ML techniques in their daily practice to gain genuinely new insights.

Suggested Citation

  • Peysakhovich, Alexander & Naecker, Jeffrey, 2017. "Using methods from machine learning to evaluate behavioral models of choice under risk and ambiguity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 373-384.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:133:y:2017:i:c:p:373-384
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2016.08.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268116301846
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    3. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2005. "A Smooth Model of Decision Making under Ambiguity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(6), pages 1849-1892, November.
    4. Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Aldo Rustichini, 2006. "Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1447-1498, November.
    5. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    6. Aurelien Baillon & Olivier L'Haridon & Laetitia Placido, 2011. "Ambiguity Models and the Machina Paradoxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1547-1560, June.
    7. Ido Erev & Eyal Ert & Alvin E. Roth, 2010. "A Choice Prediction Competition for Market Entry Games: An Introduction," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(2), pages 1-20, May.
    8. Segal, Uzi, 1987. "The Ellsberg Paradox and Risk Aversion: An Anticipated Utility Approach," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 28(1), pages 175-202, February.
    9. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    10. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    11. Christopher Chabris & David Laibson & Carrie Morris & Jonathon Schuldt & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2008. "Individual laboratory-measured discount rates predict field behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 237-269, December.
    12. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    13. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    14. Friedman, Jerome H. & Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Rob, 2010. "Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i01).
    15. Roth, Alvin E. & Erev, Ido, 1995. "Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 164-212.
    16. Drew Fudenberg & Peysakhovich, A, 2014. "Recency, Records and Recaps: Learning and Non-Equilibrium Behavior in a Simple Decision Problem," Working Paper 167691, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Laetitia Placido, 2016. "Experiments on compound risk in relation to simple risk and to ambiguity," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01301618, HAL.
    18. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    19. Hal R. Varian, 2014. "Big Data: New Tricks for Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(2), pages 3-28, Spring.
    20. repec:hal:journl:hal-01301618 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    22. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Expected Uncertain Utility Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 1-39, January.
    23. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:133:y:2017:i:c:p:373-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.