One of the paradigms in judgment and decision-making involves decision-makers sample information before making a final consequential choice. In the sampling paradigm, certain computational models have been proposed where a set of single or distribution parameters is calibrated to the choice proportions of a group of participants. However, currently little is known on how aggregate and hierarchical models would account for choices made by individual participants in the sampling paradigm. In this paper, we test the ability of aggregate and hierarchical (...) models to explain choices made by individual participants. Several models, Ensemble, Cumulative Prospect Theory, Best Estimation and Simulation Techniques, Natural-Mean Heuristic, and Instance-Based Learning, had their parameters calibrated to individual choices in a large dataset involving the sampling paradigm. Later, these models were generalized to two large datasets in the sampling paradigm. Results revealed that the aggregate models accounted for individual choices better than hierarchical models upon generalization to problems that were like those encountered during calibration. Furthermore, the CPT model, which relies on differential valuing of gains and losses, respectively, performed better than other models during calibration and generalization on datasets with similar set of problems. The IBL model, relying on recency and frequency of sampled information, and the NMH model, relying on frequency of sampled information, performed better than other models during generalization to a challenging dataset. Sequential analyses of results from different models showed how these models accounted for transitions from the last sample to final choice in human data. We highlight the implications of using aggregate and hierarchical models in explaining individual choices from experience. (shrink)

A framing bias shows risk aversion in problems framed as “gains” and risk seeking in problems framed as “losses,” even when these are objectively equivalent and probabilities and outcomes values are explicitly provided. We test this framing bias in situations where decision makers rely on their own experience, sampling the problem's options and seeing the outcomes before making a choice. In Experiment 1, we replicate the framing bias in description-based decisions and find risk indifference in gains and losses in experience-based (...) decisions. Predictions of an Instance-Based Learning model suggest that objective probabilities as well as the number of samples taken are factors that contribute to the lack of framing effect. We test these two factors in Experiment 2 and find no framing effect when a few samples are taken but when large samples are taken, the framing effect appears regardless of the objective probability values. Implications of behavioral results and cognitive modeling are discussed. (shrink)