IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/huj/dispap/dp347.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Decision Quality (Always) Increase with the Size of Information Samples? Some Vicissitudes in Applying the Law of Large Numbers

Author

Listed:
  • Yaakov Kareev
  • Klaus Fiedler

Abstract

Adaptive decision-making requires that environmental contingencies between decision options and their relative advantages and disadvantages be assessed accurately and quickly. The research presented in this article addresses the challenging notion that contingencies may be more visible from small than large samples of observations. An algorithmic account for such a "less-is-more" effect is offered within a threshold-based decision framework. Accordingly, a choice between a pair of options is only made when the contingency in the sample that describes the relative utility of the two options exceeds a critical threshold. Small samples – due to their instability and the high dispersion of their sampling distribution – facilitate the generation of above-threshold contingencies. Across a broad range of parameter values, the resulting small-sample advantage in terms of hits is stronger than their disadvantage in terms of false alarms. Computer simulations and experimental findings support the predictions derived from the threshold model. In general, the relative advantage of small samples is most apparent when information loss is low, when decision thresholds are high, and when ecological contingencies are weak to moderate.

Suggested Citation

  • Yaakov Kareev & Klaus Fiedler, 2004. "Does Decision Quality (Always) Increase with the Size of Information Samples? Some Vicissitudes in Applying the Law of Large Numbers," Discussion Paper Series dp347, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
  • Handle: RePEc:huj:dispap:dp347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://ratio.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/publications/dp347.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812.
    2. Rosenthal,Robert, 2009. "Judgment Studies," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521101479.
    3. Fiedler, Klaus & Walther, Eva & Freytag, Peter & Plessner, Henning, 2002. "Judgment Biases in a Simulated Classroom--A Cognitive-Environmental Approach," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 527-561, May.
    4. G. Kuder & M. Richardson, 1937. "The theory of the estimation of test reliability," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 2(3), pages 151-160, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Stephen A. Hillegeist & James P. Kavourakis & Matthew Pinnuck, 2023. "The association between quarter length, forecast errors, and firms’ voluntary disclosures," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 1885-1918, June.
    2. Fiedler, Klaus & Wöllert, Franz & Tauber, Benjamin & Hess, Philipp, 2013. "Applying sampling theories to attitude learning in a virtual school class environment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 222-231.
    3. Francetich, Alejandro & Kreps, David, 2020. "Choosing a good toolkit, II: Bayes-rule based heuristics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Andrea Polonioli, 2013. "Re-assessing the Heuristics debate," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 12(2), pages 263-271, November.
    5. Muhammad Fairus Abd Rahman & Nitanan Koshy Matthew, 2021. "Fish Hobbyists’ Willingness to Donate for Wild Fighting Fish ( Betta livida ) Conservation in Klang Valley," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2007. "Investment decisions, equivalent risk and bounded rationality," MPRA Paper 6073, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Beltran-Catalan, Maria & Cruz-Catalan, Esther, 2020. "How long bullying last? A comparison between a self-reported general bullying-victimization question and specific bullying-victimization questions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    8. Francetich, Alejandro & Kreps, David, 2020. "Choosing a good toolkit, I: Prior-free heuristics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. Fiedler, Klaus, 2007. "The ultimate sampling dilemma in experience-based decision making," Papers 07-51, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    10. von Borzyskowski, Inken & Wahman, Michael, 2018. "Systematic measurement error in election violence data: causes and consequences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 90450, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Joanna Bryson, 2008. "Embodiment versus memetics," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 7(1), pages 77-94, June.
    12. W. Nicewander, 1990. "A latent-trait based reliability estimate and upper bound," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 65-74, March.
    13. Maroussia Favre & Didier Sornette, 2015. "A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:21-32 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Nongyao Kasatpibal & Nongkran Viseskul & Wimonsiri Srikantha & Warunee Fongkaew & Natthakarn Surapagdee & Richard M. Grimes, 2014. "Effects of Internet‐based instruction on HIV‐prevention knowledge and practices among men who have sex with men," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 514-520, December.
    16. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2003. "Take-the-best and other simple strategies: Why and when they work 'well' in binary choice," Economics Working Papers 709, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    17. Marc Jekel & Susann Fiedler & Andreas Glockner, 2011. "Diagnostic task selection for strategy classification in judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 782-799, December.
    18. Karla Hoff, 2016. "Behavioral Economics and Social Exclusion: Can Interventions Overcome Prejudice?," International Economic Association Series, in: Kaushik Basu & Joseph E. Stiglitz (ed.), Inequality and Growth: Patterns and Policy, chapter 6, pages 172-200, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. Christopher B. Bingham & Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, 2014. "Response to Vuori and Vuori's commentary on “Heuristics in the strategy context”," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(11), pages 1698-1702, November.
    20. Eduardo Iacoponi & Jair de Jesus Mari, 1989. "Reliability and Factor Structure of the Portuguese Version of Self-Reporting Questionnaire," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 35(3), pages 213-222, September.
    21. Samuel A. Markolf & Kelly Klima & Terrence L. Wong, 2015. "Adaptation frameworks used by US decision-makers: a literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 427-436, December.

    More about this item

    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:huj:dispap:dp347. 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: Michael Simkin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crihuil.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.