IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esi/discus/2006-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Satisficing in Portfolio Selection - Theoretical Aspects and Experimental Tests

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    ()

Abstract

The satisficing approach with its three constituent processes, aspiration formation, satisficing, and aspiration adjustment, is formally elaborated for a specific class of portfolio selection tasks. It is partly poorly confirmed by experimental data, indicating that bounded rationality requires teaching or, respectively, consulting, and learning. It is also discussed and tested experimentally whether satisficing is task transcending (are there individual constants in satisficing behavior for related tasks?) and absorbable (do we stick to satisficing behavior when becoming aware of it?).

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth, 2006. "Satisficing in Portfolio Selection - Theoretical Aspects and Experimental Tests," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-16, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
  • Handle: RePEc:esi:discus:2006-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://papers.econ.mpg.de/esi/discussionpapers/2006-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly rational decision emergence : A general perspective and some selective illustrations," Discussion Paper 1997-48, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. Werner Güth & Gerlinde Fellner & Ev Martin, 2006. "Satisficing or Optimizing? - An Experimental Study," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-11, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    3. 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.
    4. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    5. Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2006. "Is Satisficing Absorbable? - An Experimental Study," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-10, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    6. Martin Beckenkamp, 2004. "Is there an optimization in bounded rationality? The ratio of aspiration levels," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2004_15, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    7. Werner G³th & Hartmut Kliemt, 2004. "Bounded Rationality and Theory Absorption," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 21, pages 521-541.
    8. Tietz, Reinhard, 1992. "Semi-normative theories based on bounded rationality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 297-314, June.
    9. Werner Güth & Gerlinde Fellner & Ev Martin, 2006. "Task Transcending Satisficing - An Experimental Study," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-09, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    10. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1991. "Utility theory with uncertainty," Handbook of Mathematical Economics,in: W. Hildenbrand & H. Sonnenschein (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 33, pages 1763-1831 Elsevier.
    11. Gerlinde Fellner & Werner Güth & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "Satisficing in Financial Decision Making A Theoretical and Experimental Attempt to Explore Bounded Rationality," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-23, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    12. Guth, Werner, 2000. "Boundedly rational decision emergence - a general perspective and some selective illustrations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 433-458, August.
    13. Selten, Reinhard, 1998. "Features of experimentally observed bounded rationality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 413-436, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:esi:discus:2006-16. 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: (Karin Richter). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/mpiewde.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.