IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2008_42.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Information Processing in Decisions under Risk: Evidence for Compensatory Strategies based on Automatic Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Glöckner

    () (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn)

  • Ann-Katrin Herbold

    (University Hospital, Bonn)

Abstract

Many everyday decisions have to be made under risk and can be interpreted as choices between gambles with different outcomes that are realized with specific probabilities. The underlying cognitive processes were investigated by testing six sets of hypotheses concerning choices, decision times, and information search derived from cumulative prospect theory, decision field theory, priority heuristic and parallel constraint satisfaction models. Our participants completed forty decision tasks of two gambles with two non-negative outcomes each. Information search was recorded using eye-tracking technology. Results for all dependent measures conflict with the prediction of the non-compensatory priority heuristic and indicate that individuals use compensatory strategies. Choice proportions are well predicted by a cumulative prospect theory. Process measures, however, indicate that individuals do not rely on deliberate calculations of weighted sums. Information integration processes seem to be better explained by models that partially rely on automatic processes such as decision field theory or parallel constraint satisfaction models.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Glöckner & Ann-Katrin Herbold, 2008. "Information Processing in Decisions under Risk: Evidence for Compensatory Strategies based on Automatic Processes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_42, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
  • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2008_42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2008_42online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. 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.
    3. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2008. "New tests of cumulative prospect theory and the priority heuristic: Probability-outcome tradeoff with branch splitting," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 304-316, April.
    6. Birnbaum, Michael H. & LaCroix, Adam R., 2008. "Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 122-133, January.
    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. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.

    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:mpg:wpaper:2008_42. 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: (Marc Martin) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.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.