One-reason decision making in risky choice? A closer look at the priority heuristic
AbstractAlthough many models for risky choices between gambles assume that information is somehow integrated, the recently proposed priority heuristic (PH) claims that choices are based on one piece of information only. That is, although the current reason for a choice according to the PH can vary, all other reasons are claimed to be ignored. However, the choices predicted by the PH and other pieces of information are often confounded, thus rendering critical tests of whether decisions are actually based on one reason only, impossible. The current study aims to remedy this problem by manipulating the number of reasons additionally in line with the choice implied by the PH. The results show that participants' choices and decision times depend heavily on the number of reasons in line with the PH --- thus contradicting the notion of non-compensatory, one-reason decision making.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.
Volume (Year): 3 (2008)
Issue (Month): 6 (August)
Contact details of provider:
priority heuristic; prospect theory; non-compensatory strategy; one-reason decision making; fast and frugal heuristics; risky choice.;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Morten Moshagen & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 814-820, December.
- Andreas Gloeckner & Steffen Moritz, 2009. "A fine-grained analysis of the jumping-to-conclusions bias in schizophrenia: Data-gathering, response confidence, and information integration}," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 587-600, December.
- Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2012. "Separating response variability from structural inconsistency to test models of risky decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 402-426, July.
- Gregory J. Koop & Joseph G. Johnson, 2011. "Response dynamics: A new window on the decision process," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 750-758, December.
- Stephen B. Broomell & Budescu, David V. & Han-Hui Por, 2011. "Pair-wise comparisons of multiple models," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 821-831, December.
- Andreas Glockner & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Editorial: Methodology in judgment and decision making research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 705-710, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.