Description-based and experience-based decisions: individual analysis
We analyze behavior in two basic classes of decision tasks: description-based and experience-based. In particular, we compare the prediction power of a number of decision learning models in both kinds of tasks. Unlike most previous studies, we focus on individual, rather than aggregate, behavioral characteristics. We carry out an experiment involving a battery of both description- and experience-based choices between two mixed binary prospects made by each of the participants, and employ a number of formal models for explaining and predicting participants' choices: Prospect theory (PT) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979); Expectancy-Valence model (EVL) (Busemeyer & Stout, 2002); and three combinations of these well-established models. We document that the PT and the EVL models are best for predicting people's decisions in description- and experience-based tasks, respectively, which is not surprising as these two models are designed specially for these kinds of tasks. Furthermore, we find that models involving linear weighting of gains and losses perform better in both kinds of tasks, from the point of view of generalizability and individual parameter consistency. We therefore, conclude that, overall, when both prospects are mixed, the assumption of diminishing sensitivity does not improve models' prediction power for individual decision-makers. Finally, for some of the models' parameters, we document consistency at the individual level between description- and experience-based tasks.
Volume (Year): 7 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 (May)
|Contact details of provider:|| |
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Yechiam, Eldad & Busemeyer, Jerome R., 2008. "Evaluating generalizability and parameter consistency in learning models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 370-394, May.
- 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.
- Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
- Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:316-331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.