Shunning Uncertainty: The Neglect of Learning Opportunities
Financial, managerial, and medical decisions often involve alternatives whose possible outcomes have uncertain probabilities. In contrast to alternatives whose probabilities are known, these uncertain alternatives offer the benefits of learning. In repeat-choice situations, such learning brings value. If probabilities appear favorable (unfavorable), a choice can be repeated (avoided). In a series of experiments involving bets on the colors of poker chips drawn from bags, decision makers often prove to be blind to the learning opportunities offered by uncertain probabilities. Such decision makers violate rational decision making and forgo significant expected payoffs when they shun uncertain alternatives in favor of risky ones. Worse, when information is revealed, many make choices contrary to learning. A range of factors explain these violations. The results indicate that priming with optimal strategies offers little improvement.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/index.htm
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Mirman, L.J. & Samuelson, L. & Urbano, A., 1989.
8-89-7, Pennsylvania State - Department of Economics.
- repec:hal:journl:hal-00457047 is not listed on IDEAS
- Corazzini, Luca & Greiner, Ben, 2007.
"Herding, social preferences and (non-)conformity,"
Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 74-80, October.
- Liu, Hsin-Hsien & Colman, Andrew M., 2009. "Ambiguity aversion in the long run: Repeated decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 277-284, June.
- Uzi Segal, 2000.
"Two Stage Lotteries Without the Reduction Axiom,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7599, David K. Levine.
- Rasmusen, Eric, 2010.
"Career concerns and ambiguity aversion,"
Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 175-177, August.
- Alfred Müller & Marco Scarsini, 2002. "Even Risk-Averters may Love Risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 81-99, February.
- Halevy, Yoram, 2005.
"Ellsberg Revisited: an Experimental Study,"
Microeconomics.ca working papers
halevy-05-07-26-11-51-13, Vancouver School of Economics, revised 25 Feb 2014.
- Gary Charness & Edi Karni & Dan Levin, 2007.
"Individual and group decision making under risk: An experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance,"
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty,
Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 129-148, October.
- Charness, Gary B & Karni, Edi, 2007. "Individual and Group Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study of Bayesian Updating and Violations of First-order Stochastic Dominance," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt4gr7j8z8, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike Benjamin, 2011.
"Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries,"
Working Paper Series in Economics
22, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Business Engineering.
- Kaivanto, Kim & Kroll, Eike B., 2012. "Negative recency, randomization device choice, and reduction of compound lotteries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 263-267.
- Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2008.
"Thought and Behavior Contagion in Capital Markets,"
9164, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Kristoffer W. Eriksen & Ola Kvaløy, 2010. "Myopic Investment Management," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 14(3), pages 521-542.
- Merlo, Antonio & Schotter, Andrew, 1999.
"A Surprise-Quiz View of Learning in Economic Experiments,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 25-54, July.
- Merlo, A. & Schotter, A., 1995. "A Surprise-Quiz View of Learning in Economic Experiments," Working Papers 95-32, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- 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.
- Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2005.
"When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1300-1309, September.
- Charness, Gary & Levin, Dan, 2003. "When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt7g63k28w, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
- Grossman, Sanford J & Kihlstrom, Richard E & Mirman, Leonard J, 1977. "A Bayesian Approach to the Production of Information and Learning by Doing," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 533-47, October.
- Kristoffer Eriksen & Ola Kvaløy, 2010. "Do financial advisors exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 159-170, June.
- Frank, Richard G. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2007.
"Custom-made versus ready-to-wear treatments: Behavioral propensities in physicians' choices,"
Journal of Health Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1101-1127, December.
- Richard G. Frank & Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2007. "Custom Made Versus Ready to Wear Treatments; Behavioral Propensities in Physician's Choices," NBER Working Papers 13445, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Rick, Scott & Weber, Roberto A., 2010. "Meaningful learning and transfer of learning in games played repeatedly without feedback," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 716-730, March.
- Rosenboim, Mosi & Shavit, Tal & Cohen, Chen, 2013. "Do bidders require a monetary premium for cognitive effort in an auction?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 99-105.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp11-044. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.