IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dbe/wpaper/0513.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Statistical formats to optimize evidence-based decision making: a behavioral approach

Author

Listed:
  • Iván Arribas

    (ERI-CES, University of Valencia, Ivie)

  • Irene Comeig

    (LINEEX, University of Valencia)

  • Amparo Urbano Salvador

    (ERI-CES, University of Valencia)

  • Jose E. Vila

    (ERI-CES, University of Valencia)

Abstract

Statistical information is crucial for managerial decision making. The decision-making literature in psychology and mathematical cognition documents how different statistical formats can facilitate certain types of decisions. The present analysis is the first of its kind to assess the impact of statistical formats in the presentation of data from market research on both the optimality of market decisions and the time required to perform the decision-making process. An economic experiment provides the data for this study. The experiment presents statistical information in simple frequencies and relative frequencies using numerical and pictorial representations in the context of different informational environments. The key findings are that statistical information presented in terms of relative frequency formats gives rise to more accurate decision making than data presented in terms of simple frequencies, independently of the informational environments. When time is the relevant variable, numerical formats lead to a faster interpretation than pictorial ones. Since the number of factors defining the four statistical formats and the different informational environments is quite large, an orthogonal design offers a suitable experimental design. This design keeps the experiment manageable without substantially reducing its analytical power

Suggested Citation

  • Iván Arribas & Irene Comeig & Amparo Urbano Salvador & Jose E. Vila, 2013. "Statistical formats to optimize evidence-based decision making: a behavioral approach," Discussion Papers in Economic Behaviour 0513, University of Valencia, ERI-CES.
  • Handle: RePEc:dbe:wpaper:0513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uv.es/erices/RePEc/WP/2013/0513.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robin Hogarth & Emre Soyer, 2010. "Econometrics and decision making: Effects of presentation mode," Economics Working Papers 1204, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. Macchi, Laura, 2000. "Partitive Formulation of Information in Probabilistic Problems: Beyond Heuristics and Frequency Format Explanations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 217-236, July.
    4. Christine Kaufmann & Martin Weber & Emily Haisley, 2013. "The Role of Experience Sampling and Graphical Displays on One's Investment Risk Appetite," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 323-340, July.
    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. Vila, Jose & Gomez, Yolanda, 2016. "Extracting business information from graphs: An eye tracking experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1741-1746.
    2. Tariq Mahadeen & Kostas Galanakis & Elpida Samara & Pavlos Kilintzis, 2021. "Heuristics and Evidences Decision (HeED) Making: a Case Study in a Systemic Model for Transforming Decision Making from Heuristics-Based to Evidenced-Based," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(4), pages 1668-1693, December.

    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. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    2. Olschewski, Sebastian & Diao, Linan & Rieskamp, Jörg, 2021. "Reinforcement learning about asset variability and correlation in repeated portfolio decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    3. Matteo Benuzzi & Matteo Ploner, 2023. "Skewness-seeking behavior and financial investments," CEEL Working Papers 2301, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    4. Christoph Huber & Jürgen Huber, 2019. "Scale matters: risk perception, return expectations, and investment propensity under different scalings," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 76-100, March.
    5. Donkers, A.C.D. & Lourenço, C.J.S. & Dellaert, B.G.C. & Goldstein, D.G., 2013. "Using Preferred Outcome Distributions to Estimate Value and Probability Weighting Functions in Decisions under Risk," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2013-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    6. Ert, Eyal & Haruvy, Ernan, 2017. "Revisiting risk aversion: Can risk preferences change with experience?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 91-95.
    7. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & John Geweke & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2016. "Risk Presentation and Portfolio Choice," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 20(1), pages 201-229.
    8. Sesil Lim & Bas Donkers & Patrick Dijl & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2021. "Digital customization of consumer investments in multiple funds: virtual integration improves risk–return decisions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 723-742, July.
    9. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. François Desmoulins-Lebeault & Jean-François Gajewski & Luc Meunier, 2018. "Personality and Risk Aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 472-489.
    11. Robert Gazzale & Julian Jamison & Alexander Karlan & Dean Karlan, 2013. "Ambiguous Solicitation: Ambiguous Prescription," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1002-1011, January.
    12. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    13. Wojciech Hardy & Michal Krawczyk & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. ""Thou shalt not leech" Are digital pirates conditional cooperators?," Working Papers 2015-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    16. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    17. Kurtis Swope & Ryan Wielgus & Pamela Schmitt & John Cadigan, 2011. "Contracts, Behavior, and the Land-assembly Problem: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experiments on Energy, the Environment, and Sustainability, pages 151-180, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    18. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    19. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    20. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Economic experiments; Statistical formats; Probability judgment; Orthogonal design; Judgment under uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:dbe:wpaper:0513. 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: Emilio Calvo Ramón (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ericees.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.