Note on Birnbaum and Wan (2020): True and error model analysis is robust with respect to certain violations of the MARTER model

Michael H. Birnbaum and Bonny Quan

Judgment and Decision Making, 2020, vol. 15, issue 5, 861-862

Abstract: The Markov True and Error (MARTER) model (Birnbaum & Wan, 2020) has three components: a risky decision making model with one or more parameters, a Markov model that describes stochastic variation of parameters over time, and a true and error (TE) model that describes probabilistic relations between true preferences and overt responses. In this study, we simulated data according to 57 generating models that either did or did not satisfy the assumptions of the True and Error fitting model, that either did or did not satisfy the error independence assumptions, that either did or did not satisfy transitivity, and that had various patterns of error rates. A key assumption in the TE fitting model is that a person’s true preferences do not change in the short time within a session; that is, preference reversals between two responses by the same person to two presentations of the same choice problem in the same brief session are due to random error. In a set of 48 simulations, data generating models either satisfied this assumption or they implemented a systematic violation, in which true preferences could change within sessions. We used the true and error (TE) fitting model to analyze the simulated data, and we found that it did a good job of distinguishing transitive from intransitive models and in estimating parameters not only when the generating model satisfied the model assumptions, but also when model assumptions were violated in this way. When the generating model violated the assumptions, statistical tests of the TE fitting models correctly detected the violations. Even when the data contained violations of the TE model, the parameter estimates representing probabilities of true preference patterns were surprisingly accurate, except for error rates, which were inflated by model violations. In a second set of simulations, the generating model either had error rates that were or were not independent of true preferences and transitivity either was or was not satisfied. It was found again that the TE analysis was able to detect the violations of the fitting model, and the analysis correctly identified whether the data had been generated by a transitive or intransitive process; however, in this case, estimated incidence of a preference pattern was reduced if that preference pattern had a higher error rate. Overall, the violations could be detected and did not affect the ability of the TE analysis to discriminate between transitive and intransitive processes.

Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:5:p:861-862_15

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Judgment and Decision Making from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().