Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance
AbstractThis paper reports the results of experiments designed to test whether individuals and groups abide by monotonicity with respect to first-order stochastic dominance and Bayesian updating, when making decisions under risk. The results indicate a significant number of violations of both principles. The violation rate when groups make decisions is substantially lower, and decreasing with group size, suggesting that social interaction improves the decision-making process. Greater transparency of the decvision task reduce the violation rate, suggesting that these violations are due to judgment errors rather than the preference structure. In one treatment, however, less complex decisions result in higher error rate.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.
Volume (Year): 35 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299
Decision making under risk; Group decisions; Bayesian updating; First-order stochastic dominance; D80; C91; C92;
Other versions of this item:
- Charness, Gary B & Karni, Edi, 2007. "Individual and Group Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study of Bayesian Updating and Violations of First-order Stochastic Dominance," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt4gr7j8z8, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ouwersloot, Hans & Nijkamp, Peter & Rietveld, Piet, 1998. "Errors in probability updating behaviour : Measurement and impact analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 535-563, October.
- repec:pri:cepsud:130 is not listed on IDEAS
- Ganguly, Ananda R & Kagel, John H & Moser, Donald V, 2000.
" Do Asset Market Prices Reflect Traders' Judgment Biases?,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 219-45, May.
- Ananda Ganguly & John Kagel & Donald Moser, 2000. "Do Asset Market Prices Reflect Traders' Judgment Biases?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 219-245, May.
- Grether, David M., 1990.
"Testing Bayes Rule and the Representativeness Heuristic: Some Experimental Evidence,"
724, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Grether, David M., 1992. "Testing bayes rule and the representativeness heuristic: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 31-57, January.
- Grether, David M, 1980.
"Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 537-57, November.
- Grether, David M., . "Bayes Rule as a Descriptive Model: The Representativeness Heuristic," Working Papers 245, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Charness, Gary & Levin, Dan, 2003.
"When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect,"
University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series
qt7g63k28w, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2005. "When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1300-1309, September.
- Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2005.
"The Decision Maker Matters: Individual Versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(500), pages 200-223, 01.
- Martin G. Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2004. "The Decision Maker Matters: Individual versus Group Behaviour in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-09, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Zizzo, Daniel John & Stolarz-Fantino, Stephanie & Wen, Julie & Fantino, Edmund, 2000. "A violation of the monotonicity axiom: experimental evidence on the conjunction fallacy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 263-276, March.
- David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.