IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v61y2006i3p205-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Take-the-Bestâ€\x9D and Other Simple Strategies: Why and When they Work “Wellâ€\x9D with Binary Cues

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Hogarth
  • Natalia Karelaia

Abstract

The effectiveness of decision rules depends on characteristics of both rules and environments. A theoretical analysis of environments specifies the relative predictive accuracies of the “take-the-bestâ€\x9D heuristic (TTB) and other simple strategies for choices between two outcomes based on binary cues. We identify three factors: how cues are weighted; characteristics of choice sets; and error. In the absence of error and for cases involving from three to five binary cues, TTB is effective across many environments. However, hybrids of equal weights (EW) and TTB models are more effective as environments become more compensatory. As error in the environment increases, the predictive ability of all models is systematically degraded. Indeed, using the datasets of Gigerenzer et al. (1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, New York: Oxford University Press), TTB and similar models do not predict much better than a naïve model that exploits dominance. Finally, we emphasize that the results reported here are conditional on binary cues. Copyright Springer 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "“Take-the-Bestâ€\x9D and Other Simple Strategies: Why and When they Work “Wellâ€\x9D with Binary Cues," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 205-249, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:61:y:2006:i:3:p:205-249
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-006-9000-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11238-006-9000-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-006-9000-8?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
    ---><---

    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. Gigerenzer, Gerd & Todd, Peter M. & ABC Research Group,, 2000. "Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195143812, Decembrie.
    2. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2004. "Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less 'more'?," Economics Working Papers 742, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Oct 2004.
    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. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Torsten Reimer & Ulrich Hoffrage, 2006. "The Ecological Rationality of Simple Group Heuristics: Effects of Group Member Strategies on Decision Accuracy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 403-438, June.

    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. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "On heuristic and linear models of judgment: Mapping the demand for knowledge," Economics Working Papers 974, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Stephen A. Hillegeist & James P. Kavourakis & Matthew Pinnuck, 2023. "The association between quarter length, forecast errors, and firms’ voluntary disclosures," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 1885-1918, June.
    3. Francetich, Alejandro & Kreps, David, 2020. "Choosing a good toolkit, II: Bayes-rule based heuristics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Andrea Polonioli, 2013. "Re-assessing the Heuristics debate," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 12(2), pages 263-271, November.
    5. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2007. "Investment decisions, equivalent risk and bounded rationality," MPRA Paper 6073, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Marc Jekel & Susann Fiedler & Andreas Glockner, 2011. "Diagnostic task selection for strategy classification in judgment and decision making," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 782-799, December.
    7. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    8. Hüsler, A. & Sornette, D. & Hommes, C.H., 2013. "Super-exponential bubbles in lab experiments: Evidence for anchoring over-optimistic expectations on price," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 304-316.
    9. Roberto Casarin & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2012. "Financial press and stock markets in times of crisis," Working Papers 2012_04, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    10. Brundin, Ethel & Gustavsson, Veronica, 2008. "Escalation of Commitment in Investment Decisions: The Role of Emotions under Uncertainty," CISEG Working Papers Series 3, Jönköping International Business School, Centre for Innovation Systems, Entrepreneurship and Growth.
    11. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Mentalism Versus Behaviourism In Economics: A Philosophy-Of-Science Perspective," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 249-281, July.
    12. Karla Hoff, 2016. "Behavioral Economics and Social Exclusion: Can Interventions Overcome Prejudice?," International Economic Association Series, in: Kaushik Basu & Joseph E. Stiglitz (ed.), Inequality and Growth: Patterns and Policy, chapter 6, pages 172-200, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    14. Francesco Guala & Antonio Filippin, 2017. "The Effect of Group Identity on Distributive Choice: Social Preference or Heuristic?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(602), pages 1047-1068, June.
    15. Heiko Rauhut & Marcel Junker, 2009. "Punishment Deters Crime Because Humans Are Bounded in Their Strategic Decision-Making," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(3), pages 1-1.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:195-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Thomas Dudey & Peter Todd, 2001. "Making Good Decisions with Minimal Information: Simultaneous and Sequential Choice," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 195-215, May.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:782-799 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Gabriel Gershenfeld, 2015. "Conjoint Analysis for Ticket Offerings at the Cleveland Indians," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 166-174, April.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1370-1391 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Christine Ohlert & Barbara Weißenberger, 2015. "Beating the base-rate fallacy: an experimental approach on the effectiveness of different information presentation formats," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 51-80, April.
    22. Peter Grand & Guido Tiemann, 2020. "The Deserving and the Undeserving: "Heuristic" or "Automatism"?," EconPol Working Paper 53, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    23. Frank Huettner, & Tamer Boyaci, & Yalcin Akcay, 2016. "Consumer choice under limited attention when alternatives have different information costs," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-16-04_R2, ESMT European School of Management and Technology, revised 28 Feb 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:kap:theord:v:61:y:2006:i:3:p:205-249. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.