IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cer/papers/wp218.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Note on "Small Feedback-based Decisions and Their Limited Correspondence to Description-based Decisions"

Author

Listed:
  • Pavlo Blavatsky

Abstract

Barron and Erev (2003) report experimental results revealing differences in risk attitude in small feedback-based problems as opposed to conventional description-based problems. This note shows that theoretical predictions drawing on a simple decision rule, known as the heuristic of relative probability comparisons (HRPC), fit the experimental data in Barron and Erev (2003) surprisingly well: even in the choice situation where the HRPC predicts an exact indifference the actual distribution of subject responses was 49% to 51%.

Suggested Citation

  • Pavlo Blavatsky, 2003. "Note on "Small Feedback-based Decisions and Their Limited Correspondence to Description-based Decisions"," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp218, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
  • Handle: RePEc:cer:papers:wp218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp218.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    3. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    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. Wieland Mueller & Eline van der Heijden & Tobias J. Klein & Jan Potters, 2011. "Nudges and Impatience: Evidence from a Large Scale Experiment," Vienna Economics Papers 1110, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    2. David Perez-Castrillo & Robert F. Veszteg, 2005. "Experimental Evidence on the Multibidding Mechanism," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 638.05, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    3. Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Myopic Loss Aversion – An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 900-916, April.
    4. Enrique Fatás & Francisca Jiménez & Antonio Morales, 2011. "Controlling for initial endowment and experience in binary choice tasks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 227-243, December.
    5. Cleotilde Gonzalez & Varun Dutt & Tomás Lejarraga, 2011. "A Loser Can Be a Winner: Comparison of Two Instance-based Learning Models in a Market Entry Competition," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(1), pages 1-27, March.
    6. Wasilios Hariskos & Johannes Leder & Kinneret Teodorescu, 2011. "Market Entry Prediction Competition 2010," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 2(2), pages 1-9, April.
    7. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "Axiomatization of a Preference for Most Probable Winner," IEW - Working Papers 230, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Knight Fever towards an Economics of Awards," IEW - Working Papers 239, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    9. Simon Weidenholzer, 2010. "Coordination Games and Local Interactions: A Survey of the Game Theoretic Literature," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(4), pages 1-35, November.
    10. Tal Neiman & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2011. "Reinforcement learning in professional basketball players," Discussion Paper Series dp593, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

    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. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    2. Bahamonde-Birke, Francisco J., 2018. "Estimating the reference frame: A smooth twice-differentiable utility function for non-compensatory loss-averse decision-making," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 71-81.
    3. Miljkovic, Dragan, 2005. "Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply an irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 621-634, October.
    4. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read & Neil Stewart, 2019. "The framing of nothing and the psychology of choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 125-149, October.
    5. Reb, Jochen & Connolly, Terry, 2009. "Myopic regret avoidance: Feedback avoidance and learning in repeated decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 182-189, July.
    6. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    7. Rand Kwong Yew Low, 2018. "Vine copulas: modelling systemic risk and enhancing higher‐moment portfolio optimisation," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(S1), pages 423-463, November.
    8. David Parkin & Nancy Devlin, 2006. "Is there a case for using visual analogue scale valuations in cost‐utility analysis?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 653-664, July.
    9. Gerlinde Fellner & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Myopic Loss Aversion – An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(537), pages 900-916, April.
    10. Nishimura, Hiroki, 2018. "The transitive core: inference of welfare from nontransitive preference relations," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), May.
    11. Sutter, Matthias, 2007. "Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 128-132, November.
    12. Doruk İriş & Jungmin Lee & Alessandro Tavoni, 2015. "Delegation and public pressure in a threshold public goods game: theory and experimental evidence," GRI Working Papers 186, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    13. Martín Egozcue & Xu Guo & Wing-Keung Wong, 2015. "Optimal output for the regret-averse competitive firm under price uncertainty," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 5(2), pages 279-295, December.
    14. Klaus Wälde, 2016. "Emotion Research in Economics," Working Papers 1611, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    15. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    16. Aigul Mavletova & James Witte, 2017. "Is the willingness to take risks contagious? A comparison of immigrants and native-born in the United States," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 827-845, July.
    17. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    18. Alexia Gaudeul, 2009. "A (Micro) Course in Microeconomic Theory for MSc Students," Working Papers id:1986, eSocialSciences.
    19. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    20. Junankar, Pramod N. (Raja), 2016. "On Measuring Uncertainty: Snakes and Ladders," IZA Discussion Papers 10244, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Heuristic of relative probability comparisons; Feedback-based decisions;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cer:papers:wp218. 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: (Lucie Vasiljevova). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiacacz.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.