IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tor/tecipa/tecipa-677.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Identifying Rule-Based Rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Yoram Halevy
  • Guy Mayraz

Abstract

The revealed preference methodology allows an observer to infer preferences from choices. This paper extends this fundamental idea by experimentally identifying the preference for basing choices on simple decision rules. Subjects not only make case-by-case portfolio allocations but also design a simple investment rule for selecting portfolios. They then choose between these two decision modes for an additional set of problems. The majority opt for the rule interface, and in most cases, choose a simple investment rule that cannot be rationalized by any simple utility function or accounted for by reductions in decision time or cognitive costs.

Suggested Citation

  • Yoram Halevy & Guy Mayraz, 2020. "Identifying Rule-Based Rationality," Working Papers tecipa-677, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:tor:tecipa:tecipa-677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-677.pdf
    File Function: Main Text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. David J. Freeman & Guy Mayraz, 2019. "Why choice lists increase risk taking," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 131-154, March.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2001. "Naive Diversification Strategies in Defined Contribution Saving Plans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 79-98, March.
    4. Yoram Halevy & Vincent Feltkamp, 2005. "A Bayesian Approach to Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(2), pages 449-466.
    5. Yoram Halevy & Dotan Persitz & Lanny Zrill, 2018. "Parametric Recoverability of Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1558-1593.
    6. David J. Freeman & Yoram Halevy & Terri Kneeland, 2019. "Eliciting risk preferences using choice lists," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 217-237, January.
    7. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
    8. R. L. Hall & C. J. Hitch, 1939. "Price Theory And Business Behaviour," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 0(1), pages 12-45.
    9. Ryan Oprea, 2020. "What Makes a Rule Complex?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(12), pages 3913-3951, December.
    10. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    11. Robert J. Aumann, 2008. "Rule-Rationality versus Act-Rationality," Discussion Paper Series dp497, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    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. de Castro, Luciano & Galvao, Antonio F. & Noussair, Charles N. & Qiao, Liang, 2022. "Do people maximize quantiles?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 22-40.

    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. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    2. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    3. Jehiel, Philippe, 2005. "Analogy-based expectation equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 81-104, August.
    4. Sidney G. Winter, 2017. "Pursuing the evolutionary agenda in economics and management research," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(3), pages 721-747.
    5. MacLeod, W Bentley, 2016. "Human capital: Linking behavior to rational choice via dual process theory," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 20-31.
    6. Clement A. Tisdell, 2017. "Bounded Rationality, Satisficing and the Evolution of Economic Thought," Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Papers 264873, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    7. Harry Bloch & Stan Metcalfe, 2018. "Innovation, creative destruction, and price theory," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13.
    8. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Brit Grosskopf & Rajiv Sarin & Elizabeth Watson, 2015. "An experiment on case-based decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 639-666, December.
    11. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Randomize at Your Own Risk: On the Observability of Ambiguity Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(3), pages 1085-1107, May.
    12. Yuval Salant & Jörg L. Spenkuch, 2021. "Complexity and Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9239, CESifo.
    13. Georgios Gerasimou, 2021. "Towards Eliciting Weak or Incomplete Preferences in the Lab: A Model-Rich Approach," Papers 2111.14431, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    14. Stefano Ficco & Vladimir Karamychev & Peran van Reeven, 2006. "A Theory of Procedurally Rational Choice: Optimization without Evaluation," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-001/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Larry G. Epstein & Yoram Halevy, 2019. "Hard-to-Interpret Signals," Working Papers tecipa-634, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    16. Mareile Drechsler & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2014. "Axiomatizing bounded rationality: the priority heuristic," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 183-196, August.
    17. Mahmood, Ammara & Luffarelli, Jonathan & Mukesh, Mudra, 2019. "What's in a logo? The impact of complex visual cues in equity crowdfunding," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 41-62.
    18. Thanos Skouras & Yiannis Kitromilides, 2014. "The irresistible charm of the micro-foundations dogma or the overwhelming force of the discipline's hard core?," European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies: Intervention, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 11(1), pages 67-79, April.
    19. Zhihua Li & Songfa Zhong, 2023. "Reference Dependence in Intertemporal Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(1), pages 475-490, January.
    20. Michael Theil, 2003. "The Value of Personal Contact in Marketing Insurance: Client Judgments of Representativeness and Mental Availability," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 6(2), pages 145-157, September.
    21. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bounded rationality; procedural rationality;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
    • G41 - Financial Economics - - Behavioral Finance - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making in Financial Markets

    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:tor:tecipa:tecipa-677. 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: RePEc Maintainer (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.