IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v106y2008i2p168-179.html

Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice

Author

Listed:
  • Rakow, Tim
  • Demes, Kali A.
  • Newell, Ben R.

Abstract

Most experimental investigations of risky choice provide participants with a description of the probabilities and outcomes for each option, and observe that small probabilities are overweighted. However, when payoffs are learned from repeated experience of outcomes (as in many real-world decisions), different patterns of choice are observed--consistent with underweighting rare events. We re-examined this phenomenon to determine whether biased sampling and recency effects in experience-based choice could account for this description-experience gap. Two hundred and forty paid participants made choices for 12 pairs of simple gambles. In the objective description condition, probabilities and outcomes were specified. In the free sampling condition, participants observed repeated plays of each gamble before choosing. Participants in four yoked conditions received the same information as the free sampling participants--either described or experienced. Differences between objective description and free sampling were consistent with underweighting rare events in experience-based choice. However, consistent with a biased sampling account, patterns of choice in the yoked conditions barely differed from the free sampling condition: given identical information, presentation mode has no effect. Recency effects in choice occurred only when outcomes were actively sampled, and were unaffected by working memory capacity. The absence of recency for passive observation implies actor-observer differences in forming expectations or testing hypotheses. The results provide no support for the claim that decisions from description and decisions from experience require separate descriptive theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Rakow, Tim & Demes, Kali A. & Newell, Ben R., 2008. "Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 168-179, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:106:y:2008:i:2:p:168-179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(08)00012-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laibson, David & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1998. "Amos Tversky and the Ascent of Behavioral Economics," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 7-47, April.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Craig R. Fox & Liat Hadar, 2006. ""Decisions from experience" = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 159-161, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Harvey, Nigel & Koehler, Derek J. & Ayton, Peter, 1997. "Judgments of Decision Effectiveness: Actor-Observer Differences in Overconfidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 267-282, June.
    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. Kopsacheilis, Orestis & van Dolder, Dennie & Isler, Ozan, 2025. "Conditional cooperation under uncertainty: The social description-experience gap," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 241-256.
    2. Barron, Greg & Ursino, Giovanni, 2013. "Underweighting rare events in experience based decisions: Beyond sample error," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 278-286.
    3. Camilleri, Adrian R. & Newell, Ben R., 2019. "Better calibration when predicting from experience (rather than description)," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 62-82.
    4. Robin Cubitt & Orestis Kopsacheilis & Chris Starmer, 2022. "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Description - Experience gap," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 105-137, October.
    5. Adrian R. Camilleri & Ben R. Newell, 2009. "The role of representation in experience-based choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 518-529, December.
    6. Jordan Tong & Daniel Feiler, 2017. "A Behavioral Model of Forecasting: Naive Statistics on Mental Samples," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3609-3627, November.
    7. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    8. Michael P. Haselhuhn & Devin G. Pope & Maurice E. Schweitzer & Peter Fishman, 2012. "The Impact of Personal Experience on Behavior: Evidence from Video-Rental Fines," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 52-61, January.
    9. Roth, Alvin E. & Herzog, Stefan & Hau, Robin & Hertwig, Ralph & Erev, Ido & Ert, Eyal & Haruvy, Ernan & Stewart, Terrence & West, Robert & Lebiere, Christian, 2009. "A Choice Prediction Competition: Choices From Experience and From Description," Scholarly Articles 5343169, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Nathaniel J. S. Ashby, 2017. "Numeracy predicts preference consistency: Deliberative search heuristics increase choice consistency for choices from description and experience," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(2), pages 128-139, March.
    11. Farid Anvari & Stephan Billinger & Pantelis P. Analytis & Vithor Rosa Franco & Davide Marchiori, 2024. "Testing the convergent validity, domain generality, and temporal stability of selected measures of people’s tendency to explore," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Orestis Kopsacheilis, 2018. "The role of information search and its influence on risk preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 311-339, May.
    13. Ramirez, Patrick A. & Levine, Daniel S., 2013. "A review of the certainty effect and influence of information processing," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-47, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    14. Martin Wallmeier, 2011. "Beyond payoff diagrams: how to present risk and return characteristics of structured products," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 25(3), pages 313-338, September.
    15. Shereen J. Chaudhry & Michael Hand & Howard Kunreuther, 2020. "Broad bracketing for low probability events," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 211-244, December.
    16. Liat Hadar & Craig R. Fox, 2009. "Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(4), pages 317-325, June.
    17. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1146-1175 is not listed 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. Ofir Yakobi & Doron Cohen & Eitan Naveh & Ido Erev, 2020. "Reliance on small samples and the value of taxing reckless behaviors," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 266-281, March.
    2. Greg Barron & Eldad Yechiam, 2009. "The coexistence of overestimation and underweighting of rare events and the contingent recency effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(6), pages 447-460, October.
    3. Stefan Zeisberger, 2022. "Do people care about loss probabilities?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 185-213, October.
    4. Gao, Kun & Sun, Lijun & Yang, Ying & Meng, Fanyu & Qu, Xiaobo, 2021. "Cumulative prospect theory coupled with multi-attribute decision making for modeling travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 1-21.
    5. Kemel, Emmanuel & Paraschiv, Corina, 2013. "Prospect Theory for joint time and money consequences in risk and ambiguity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-95.
    6. Adrian R. Camilleri & Ben R. Newell, 2009. "The role of representation in experience-based choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 518-529, December.
    7. Avineri, Erel, 2012. "On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the perspective of transport and climate change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 512-521.
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L'Haridon & Corina Paraschiv, 2011. "Experienced vs. Described Uncertainty: Do We Need Two Prospect Theory Specifications?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1879-1895, October.
    9. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1146-1175 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Snorre Sylvester Frid-Nielsen & Mads Dagnis Jensen, 2021. "Maps of Behavioural Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 33(2), pages 226-250, July.
    11. David H. Krantz & Howard C. Kunreuther, 2007. "Goals and plans in decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 2, pages 137-168, June.
    12. Tomasz Potocki, 2012. "Cumulative Prospect Theory as a model of economic rationality," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    13. Essig, Lothar, 2005. "Precautionary saving and old-age provisions : do subjective saving motives measures work?," Papers 05-22, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    14. Krzysztof Zieliński, 2012. "Błędy popełniane w procesie podejmowania decyzji w świetle behawioralnej ekonomii finansowej," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    15. André Palma & Mohammed Abdellaoui & Giuseppe Attanasi & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Ido Erev & Helga Fehr-Duda & Dennis Fok & Craig Fox & Ralph Hertwig & Nathalie Picard & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker & Martin We, 2014. "Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 269-280, September.
    16. Ilke Aydogan & Yu Gao, 2020. "Experience and rationality under risk: re-examining the impact of sampling experience," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1100-1128, December.
    17. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.
    18. Christoph Duden & Oliver Mußhoff & Frank Offermann, 2023. "Dealing with low‐probability shocks: The role of selected heuristics in farmers’ risk management decisions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 382-399, May.
    19. Barron, Greg & Leider, Stephen & Stack, Jennifer, 2008. "The effect of safe experience on a warnings' impact: Sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 125-142, July.
    20. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    21. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:106:y:2008:i:2:p:168-179. 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/obhdp .

    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.