IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v63y2017i5p1519-1528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing the Devil You Don’t Know: Evidence for Limited Sensitivity to Sample Size–Based Uncertainty When It Offers an Advantage

Author

Listed:
  • Florian L. Kutzner

    (Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany; Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, Coventry CV4 7AL United Kingdom)

  • Daniel Read

    (Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom)

  • Neil Stewart

    (Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom)

  • Gordon Brown

    (Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Many decision makers seek to optimize choices between uncertain options such as strategies, employees, or products. When performance targets must be met, attending to observed past performance is not enough to optimize choices—option uncertainty must also be considered. For example, for stretch targets that exceed observed performance, more uncertain options are often better bets. A significant determinant of option uncertainty is sample size: for a given option, the smaller the sample of information we have about it, the greater the uncertainty. In two studies, choices were made between pairs of uncertain options with the goal of exceeding a specified performance target. Information about the options differed in the size of the sample drawn from them, sample size , and the observed performance of those samples, the proportion of successes or “hits” in the sample. We found people to be sensitive to sample size–based uncertainty only when differences in observed performance were negligible. We conclude that in the presence of performance targets, people largely fail to capitalize on the value advantages of small samples in the presence of stretch targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Florian L. Kutzner & Daniel Read & Neil Stewart & Gordon Brown, 2017. "Choosing the Devil You Don’t Know: Evidence for Limited Sensitivity to Sample Size–Based Uncertainty When It Offers an Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1519-1528, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:5:p:1519-1528
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2394
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2394?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fishburn, Peter C, 1977. "Mean-Risk Analysis with Risk Associated with Below-Target Returns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 116-126, March.
    2. Robin M. Hogarth & Hillel J. Einhorn, 1990. "Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(7), pages 780-803, July.
    3. Harry Markowitz, 1952. "The Utility of Wealth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 60(2), pages 151-151.
    4. Wallace Hendricks & Lawrence DeBrock & Roger Koenker, 2003. "Uncertainty, Hiring, and Subsequent Performance: The NFL Draft," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(4), pages 857-886, October.
    5. Christopher R. Bollinger & Julie L. Hotchkiss, 2003. "The Upside Potential of Hiring Risky Workers: Evidence from the Baseball Industry," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(4), pages 923-944, October.
    6. 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..
    7. James G. March & Zur Shapira, 1987. "Managerial Perspectives on Risk and Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1404-1418, November.
    8. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    9. 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.
    10. Simon Burgess & Julia Lane & David Stevens, 1998. "Hiring Risky Workers: Some Evidence," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(4), pages 669-676, December.
    11. Dan J. Laughhunn & John W. Payne & Roy Crum, 1980. "Managerial Risk Preferences for Below-Target Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(12), pages 1238-1249, December.
    12. Edward P. Lazear, 1995. "Hiring Risky Workers," NBER Working Papers 5334, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Curley, Shawn P. & Yates, J. Frank, 1985. "The center and range of the probability interval as factors affecting ambiguity preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 273-287, October.
    14. John W. Payne & Dan J. Laughhunn & Roy Crum, 1980. "Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(10), pages 1039-1060, October.
    15. Kahn, Barbara E & Sarin, Rakesh K, 1988. "Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions under Uncertainty," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(2), pages 265-272, September.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1146-1175 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:1146-1175 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Er-Rahmadi, Btissam & Ma, Tiejun, 2022. "Data-driven mixed-Integer linear programming-based optimisation for efficient failure detection in large-scale distributed systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(1), pages 337-353.

    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. Enrico G. De Giorgi & David B. Brown & Melvyn Sim, 2010. "Dual representation of choice and aspirational preferences," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2010 2010-07, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    2. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    3. David B. Brown & Enrico De Giorgi & Melvyn Sim, 2012. "Aspirational Preferences and Their Representation by Risk Measures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(11), pages 2095-2113, November.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. David B. BROWN & Enrico G. DE GIORGI & Melvyn SIM, 2009. "A Satiscing Alternative to Prospect Theory," Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series 09-19, Swiss Finance Institute.
    6. Jean Desrochers & J. Francois Outreville, 2013. "Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Risk Taking: an experimental investigation of consumer behavior and demand for insurance," ICER Working Papers 10-2013, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    7. Paul Dolan & Martin Jones, 2004. "Explaining Attitudes Towards Ambiguity: An Experimental Test Of The Comparative Ignorance Hypothesis," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 51(3), pages 281-301, August.
    8. Veronika Nemes & Lata Gangadharan, 2011. "The Implications of Risk and Uncertainty Aversion in Public Goods Games," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 10107, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    9. 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.
    10. Riddel, Mary C. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2006. "A Theoretically-Consistent Empirical Non-Expected Utility Model of Ambiguity: Nuclear Waste Mortality Risk and Yucca Mountain," Pre-Prints 23964, Texas A&M University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    11. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    12. 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.
    13. E. Diecidue & J. van de Ven & U. Weitzel, 2008. "Shareholders’ expectations, aspiration levels, and mergers," Working Papers 08-06, Utrecht School of Economics.
    14. Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy, 2009. "Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 199-228, March.
    15. Gijs van de Kuilen & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Midweight Method to Measure Attitudes Toward Risk and Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(3), pages 582-598, March.
    16. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    17. Dmitri Vinogradov & Yousef Makhlouf, 2017. "Signaling Probabilities in Ambiguity: on the impact of vague news," Working Papers 2017_12, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    18. Valeri Zakamouline & Steen Koekebakker, 2009. "A Generalisation of the Mean†Variance Analysis," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 15(5), pages 934-970, November.
    19. Stefanescu, Razvan & Dumitriu, Ramona, 2015. "Alegerea soluţiilor pentru expunerile faţă de risc [Choosing solutions to risk exposures]," MPRA Paper 65074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Huber, Jürgen & Kirchler, Michael & Stefan, Matthias, 2014. "Experimental evidence on varying uncertainty and skewness in laboratory double-auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 798-809.
    21. Koch, Christopher & Schunk, Daniel, 2007. "The Case for Limited Auditor Liability - The Effects of Liability Size on Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 07-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:5:p:1519-1528. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.