IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v68y2010i1p130-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception of probabilities in situations of risk: A case based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Gayer, Gabrielle

Abstract

This paper provides a description of a possible mental process individuals go through in their attempt to comprehend stated probabilities in simple lotteries. The evaluation of probabilities is based on the following main components: lotteries encountered in the past, the realizations of these lotteries, and the similarity between stated probabilities. A probability is evaluated based on the experienced relative frequencies of outcomes that had that stated probability, as well as outcomes of other lotteries that had similar stated probabilities. This process may result in distortion of probabilities as observed in the literature, and in particular, in overvaluing low probabilities and undervaluing high probabilities. If the decision maker uses a less permissive similarity function as the size of memory grows, she will learn the real value of the stated probabilities. If, however, the similarity function is independent of memory, biases persist even when data are accumulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Gayer, Gabrielle, 2010. "Perception of probabilities in situations of risk: A case based approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 130-143, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:68:y:2010:i:1:p:130-143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(09)00098-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 2003. "Inductive Inference: An Axiomatic Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 1-26, January.
    2. Antoine Billot & Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Axiomatization of an Exponential Similarity Function," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 10, pages 245-257, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1995. "Case-Based Decision Theory," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 605-639.
    4. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    5. Pagan,Adrian & Ullah,Aman, 1999. "Nonparametric Econometrics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521355643, October.
    6. Chew, Soo Hong, 1983. "A Generalization of the Quasilinear Mean with Applications to the Measurement of Income Inequality and Decision Theory Resolving the Allais Paradox," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 1065-1092, July.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    8. Antoine Billot & Itzhak Gilboa & Dov Samet & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Probabilities as Similarity-Weighted Frequencies," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 7, pages 169-184, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521802345.
    10. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    11. Itzhak Gilboa & Offer Lieberman & David Schmeidler, 2012. "Empirical Similarity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Case-Based Predictions An Axiomatic Approach to Prediction, Classification and Statistical Learning, chapter 9, pages 211-243, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Frederick Mosteller & Philip Nogee, 1951. "An Experimental Measurement of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59, pages 371-371.
    13. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Guerdjikova, Ani, 2008. "Case-based learning with different similarity functions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 107-132, May.
    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. Shiri Alon & Sarah Auster & Gabi Gayer & Stefania Minardi, 2023. "Persuasion with Limited Data: A Case-Based Approach," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 245, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Zhenxing Huang & Asli Selim & Peter P. Wakker, 2018. "Measuring Ambiguity Attitudes for All (Natural) Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1839-1858, September.
    3. Bernasconi, Michele & Bernhofer, Juliana, 2020. "Catch Me If You Can: Testing the reduction of compound lotteries axiom in a tax compliance experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    4. Davide Marchiori & Sibilla Di Guida & Ido Erev, 2013. "Noisy retrievers and the four-fold reaction to rare events," Working Papers 3, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    5. Li, Chen & Turmunkh, Uyanga & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Social and strategic ambiguity versus betrayal aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 272-287.
    6. Ziv Naor, 2015. "Why a small probability of terror generates a large macroeconomic impact," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 583-599, December.
    7. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.

    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sudeep Bhatia & Graham Loomes & Daniel Read, 2021. "Establishing the laws of preferential choice behavior," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1324-1369, November.
    3. Upravitelev, A., 2023. "Neoclassical roots of behavioral economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 58(1), pages 110-140.
    4. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    5. Gilboa, Itzhak & Lieberman, Offer & Schmeidler, David, 2011. "A similarity-based approach to prediction," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 124-131, May.
    6. Bleile, Jörg, 2016. "Cautious Belief Formation," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 507, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    7. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    8. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    9. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    10. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Utility Measurement in Integrative Negotiation," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15.
    11. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.
    12. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1998. "AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 277-290, November.
    13. Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Graham Loomes & Andrea Isoni & David Butler & Larbi Alaoui, 2018. "Boundedly rational expected utility theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 199-223, December.
    14. Colin Camerer, 1998. "Bounded Rationality in Individual Decision Making," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 163-183, September.
    15. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Itzhak Gilboa, 2010. "Questions in Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-1289, November.
    18. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    19. Marco LiCalzi, 2005. "A language for the construction of preferences under uncertainty," Game Theory and Information 0509002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    21. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.

    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:eee:gamebe:v:68:y:2010:i:1:p:130-143. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.