This study proposes a method for processing unordered datasets using deep learning techniques and introduces a model capable of simultaneously predicting three context effects and selections. “Context effects” refer to dramatic changes in the selection situation caused by the introduction of new options into a set of choices. Five experiments were conducted using different product-selection data. Each experiment focused on predicting context effects, selections, predictions under different context effects, predictions for different types of products, and predictions that considered context effects. The results demonstrated that the proposed model is suitable for classification prediction tasks in complex situations. The more complex the model and the larger the amount of data, the better the results. This study extends the application of neural networks to multi-attribute decision-making problems and contributes to the selection of decision-making models. It also improves the prediction accuracy and analyzes the impact of context effects on choices.

1. [1] D. He, “A behavioral analysis of the transformation from rational choice to irrational choice,” Economic Research J., Vol.2005, No.8, pp. 73-83, 2005 (in Chinese).
2. [2] I. Simonson, “Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects,” J. of Consumer Research, Vol.16, No.2, pp. 158-174, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1086/209205
3. [3] A. Tversky and I. Simonson, “Context-dependent preferences,” Management Science, Vol.39, No.10, pp. 1179-1189, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179
4. [4] J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” Proc. of the 2019 Conf. on the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol.1, pp. 4171-4186, 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423
5. [5] H.-T. Cheng et al., “Wide & deep learning for recommender systems,” arXiv:1606.07792, 2016. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.07792
6. [6] A. Mottini and R. Acuna-Agost, “Deep choice model using pointer networks for airline itinerary prediction,” Proc. of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1575-1583, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098005
7. [7] R. Dhar and R. Glazer, “Similarity in context: Cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.67, No.3, pp. 280-293, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0080
8. [8] J. Huber, J. W. Payne, and C. Puto, “Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis,” J. of Consumer Research, Vol.9, No.1, pp. 90-98, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1086/208899
9. [9] J. R. Busemeyer, R. Barkan, S. Mehta, and A. Chaturvedi, “Context effects and models of preferential choice: Implications for consumer behavior,” Marketing Theory, Vol.7, No.1, pp. 39-58, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107073844
10. [10] C.-C. Chang, S.-C. Chuang, Y.-H. Cheng, and T.-Y. Huang, “The compromise effect in choosing for others,” J. of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.25, No.2, pp. 109-122, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.720
11. [11] S.-C. Chuang, Y.-H. Cheng, C.-J. Chang, and Y.-T. Chiang, “The impact of self-confidence on the compromise effect,” Int. J. of Psychology, Vol.48, No.4, pp. 660-675, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.666553
12. [12] M. Mourali, U. Böckenholt, and M. Laroche, “Compromise and attraction effects under prevention and promotion motivations,” J. of Consumer Research, Vol.34, No.2, pp. 234-247, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1086/519151
13. [13] R. Dhar, S. M. Nowlis, and S. J. Sherman, “Trying hard or hardly trying: An analysis of context effects in choice,” J. of Consumer Psychology, Vol.9, No.4, pp. 189-200, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP0904_1
14. [14] C.-F. Lee, S.-C. Chuang, C.-K. Chiu, and K.-H. Lan, “The influence of task difficulty on context effect—Compromise and attraction effects,” Current Psychology, Vol.36, No.3, pp. 392-409, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9428-0
15. [15] I.-J. Park, J. Kim, J. Jhang, S. S. Kim, and V. Zhao, “How more options decrease the compromise effect: Investigating boundary conditions for the compromise effect in travel decisions,” J. of Travel Research, Vol.61, No.7, pp. 1542-1558, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211036193
16. [16] R. Kivetz, O. Netzer, and V. Srinivasan, “Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect,” J. of Marketing Research, Vol.41, No.3, pp. 237-257, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.41.3.237.35990
17. [17] R. M. Roe, J. R. Busemeyer, and J. T. Townsend, “Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making,” Psychological Review, Vol.108, No.2, pp. 370-392, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370
18. [18] J. R. Busemeyer and J. T. Townsend, “Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment,” Psychological Review, Vol.100, No.3, pp. 432-459, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432
19. [19] A. Tversky, “Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice,” Psychological Review, Vol.79, No.4, pp. 281-299, 1972. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955
20. [20] A. Tversky and I. Simonson, “Context-dependent preferences,” Management Science, Vol.39, No.10, pp. 1179-1189, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179
21. [21] J. R. Busemeyer, R. K. Jessup, J. G. Johnson, and J. T. Townsend, “Building bridges between neural models and complex decision making behaviour,” Neural Networks, Vol.19, No.8, pp. 1047-1058, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2006.05.043
22. [22] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty,” J. of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol.5, No.4, pp. 297-323, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
23. [23] A. Vaswani et al., “Attention is all you need,” arXiv:1706.03762, 2017. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
24. [24] S. Koatani, “Discrete choice model and predicting preference reversals via permutation equivalent neural networks,” Master’s thesis, Waseda University, 2019 (in Japanese).
25. [25] M. Zaheer et al., “Deep sets,” Proc. of the 31st Int. Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3394-3404, 2017.
26. [26] J. Lee et al., “Set Transformer: A framework for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks,” arXiv:1810.00825, 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.00825
27. [27] N. A. J. Berkowitsch, B. Scheibehenne, and J. Rieskamp, “Rigorously testing multialternative decision field theory against random utility models,” J. of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol.143, No.3, pp. 1331-1348, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035159
28. [28] A. Puška, Ž. Stević, and D. Pamučar, “Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods,” Environment Development and Sustainability, Vol.24, No.9, pp. 11195-11225, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01902-2