IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v63y2017i6p1953-1971.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Tomás Lejarraga

    (Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14195 Berlin, Germany)

  • Johannes Müller-Trede

    (Rady School of Management, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093)

Abstract

How do teams make joint decisions under risk when some team members learn about a prospect from description and others learn from experience? In a series of experiments, we find that two-person teams composed of one participant who learns from description and a second participant who learns from experience arrive at shared decisions via mutual concessions. In doing so, they attenuate individual biases, such as the overweighting and underweighting of the probability of rare events. The social interaction thus leads dyads to make shared decisions that follow normative standards more closely than the decisions made by individual decision makers. Finally, in processing experiential information, dyads appear to be sensitive to the reliability of the experience: the more reliable the experiential information, the larger its influence on the dyad’s decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomás Lejarraga & Johannes Müller-Trede, 2017. "When Experience Meets Description: How Dyads Integrate Experiential and Descriptive Information in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(6), pages 1953-1971, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:6:p:1953-1971
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2428
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2428
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2428?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    2. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    5. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
    6. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Dutch books: avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-149, March.
    7. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    8. Barron, Greg & Leider, Stephen & Stack, Jennifer, 2008. "The effect of safe experience on a warnings' impact: Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 125-142, July.
    9. Dalal, Reeshad S. & Bonaccio, Silvia, 2010. "What types of advice do decision-makers prefer?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 11-23, May.
    10. David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2006. "Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 529-541, April.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    13. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, April.
    14. Clemen, Robert T., 1989. "Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 559-583.
    15. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    16. Lejarraga, Tomás & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2011. "Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 286-295.
    17. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    18. Angela Fagerlin & Catharine Wang & Peter A. Ubel, 2005. "Reducing the Influence of Anecdotal Reasoning on People’s Health Care Decisions: Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Statistics?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 398-405, July.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:317-325 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    21. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lejarraga, Tomás & Lejarraga, José, 2020. "Confidence and the description–experience distinction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 201-212.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    3. Arjan Verschoor & Ben D’Exelle, 2022. "Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 223-258, February.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    5. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    6. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    7. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    8. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    9. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    10. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    11. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    12. Peon, David & Calvo, Anxo & Antelo, Manel, 2014. "A short-but-efficient test for overconfidence and prospect theory. Experimental validation," MPRA Paper 54135, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    14. Martín Egozcue & Luis Fuentes García & Ričardas Zitikis, 2023. "The Slicing Method: Determining Insensitivity Regions of Probability Weighting Functions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 61(4), pages 1369-1402, April.
    15. Anthony Newell, 2020. "Is your heart weighing down your prospects? Interoception, risk literacy and prospect theory," QuBE Working Papers 058, QUT Business School.
    16. Zhong, Xiaoling & Wang, Junbo, 2018. "Prospect theory and corporate bond returns: An empirical study," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-48.
    17. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    18. Ilke Aydogan & Yu Gao, 2020. "Experience and rationality under risk: re-examining the impact of sampling experience," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1100-1128, December.
    19. Golo-Friedrich Bauermeister & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Musshoff, 2018. "Consistency of determined risk attitudes and probability weightings across different elicitation methods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 627-644, June.
    20. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:6:p:1953-1971. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.