skip to main content
10.1145/1068009.1068346acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Classification of human decision behavior: finding modular decision rules with genetic algorithms

Published:25 June 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

In search tasks, for example when individuals search for the best price of a product, individuals are confronted in sequential steps with different situations and they have to decide whether to continue or stop searching. The decision behavior of individuals in such search tasks is described by a search strategy.This paper presents a new approach of finding high-quality search strategies by using genetic algorithms (GAs). Only the structure of the search strategies and the basic building blocks (price thresholds and price patterns) that can be used for the search strategies are pre-specified. It is the purpose of the GA to construct search strategies that well describe human search behavior. The search strategies found by the GA are able to predict human behavior in search tasks better than traditional search strategies from the literature which are usually based on theoretical assumptions about human behavior in search tasks. Furthermore, the found search strategies are reasonable in the sense that they can be well interpreted, and generally that means they describe the search behavior of a larger group of individuals and allow some kind of categorization and classification.The results of this study open a new perspective for future research in developing behavioral strategies. Instead of deriving search strategies from theoretical assumptions about human behavior, researchers can directly analyze human behavior in search tasks and find appropriate and high-quality search strategies. These can be used for gaining new insights into the motivation behind human search and for developing new theoretical models about human search behavior.

References

  1. Z. Eckstein and G. J. van den Berg. Empirical labor search: A survey. Journal of Econometrics, forthcoming, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. El-Gamal and D. M. Grether. Are people bayesian? uncovering behavioral strategies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90:1137--1145, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. M. A. El-Gamal and T. R. Palfrey. Vertigo: Comparing structural models of imperfect behavior in experimental games. Games and Economic Behavior, 8:322--348, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. J. Engle-Warnick. Inferring strategies from experimental data: A nonparametric, binary tree classification approach. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 27:2151--2170, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. G. Gigerenzer. The adaptive toolbox, pages 37--50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. E. Goldberg. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. G. W. Harrison and P. Morgan. Search intensity in experiments. Economic Journal, 100:478--486, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J. D. Hey. Are optimal search rules reasonable? and vice versa? (and does it matter anyway?). Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 2:47--70, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J. D. Hey. Economics in Disequilibrium. Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. D. Hey. Search for rules for search. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 3:65--81, 1982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. J. D. Hey. Still searching. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 8:137--144, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. D. Houser, M. Keane, and K. McCabe. Behavior in a dynamic decision problem: An analysis of experimental evidence using a Bayesian type classification algorithm. Econometrica, 72(3):781--822, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D. Houser and J. Winter. How do behavioral assumptions affect structural inference? Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 22(1):64--79, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. C. A. Kogut. Consumer search behaviour and sunk costs. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 14:381--392, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. A. Lippman and J. J. McCall. The economics of job search: A survey. Economic Inquiry, 14:155--189, 1976.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. R. D. McKelvey and T. R. Palfrey. An experimental stud y of the centipede game. Econometrica, 4:806--836, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. P. Moon and A. Martin. Better heuristics for economic search: Experimental and simulation evidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3:175--193, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. D. Schunk and J. Winter. The relationship between risk attitudes and heuristics in search tasks: A laboratory experiment. SFB-Working Paper 04-23, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J. Sonnemans. Strategies of search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35:309--332, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. J. Sonnemans. Decisions and strategies in a sequential search experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21:91--102, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. G. Syswerda. Uniform crossover in genetic algorithms. In J. D. Schaffer, editor, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 2--9, San Mateo, CA, 1989. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Thierens. Analysis and design of genetic algorithms. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. R. Zwick, A. Rapoport, A. K. C. Lo, and A. V. Muthukrishnan. Consumer sequential search: Not enough or too much? Marketing Science, 22(4):503--519, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Classification of human decision behavior: finding modular decision rules with genetic algorithms

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      GECCO '05: Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation
      June 2005
      2272 pages
      ISBN:1595930108
      DOI:10.1145/1068009

      Copyright © 2005 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 June 2005

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

      Upcoming Conference

      GECCO '24
      Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
      July 14 - 18, 2024
      Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader