IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/709.html

Take-the-best and other simple strategies: Why and when they work 'well' in binary choice

Author

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 lexicographic rule 'take-the-best' (TTB) and other simple strategies for binary choice. We identify three factors: how the environment weights variables; characteristics of choice sets; and error. 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. In the presence of error, TTB and similar models do not predict much better than a naïve model that exploits dominance. We emphasize psychological implications and the need for more complete theories of the environment that include the role of error.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2003. "Take-the-best and other simple strategies: Why and when they work 'well' in binary choice," Economics Working Papers 709, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/709.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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.
    2. Newell, Ben R. & Weston, Nicola J. & Shanks, David R., 2003. "Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: Not everyone "takes-the-best"," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 82-96, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Clintin Davis-Stober, 2011. "A Geometric Analysis of When Fixed Weighting Schemes Will Outperform Ordinary Least Squares," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 650-669, October.
    3. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does Consistency Predict Accuracy of Beliefs?: Economists Surveyed About PSA," MPRA Paper 24976, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. 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.
    2. Francetich, Alejandro & Kreps, David, 2020. "Choosing a good toolkit, II: Bayes-rule based heuristics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. 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.
    4. Magni, Carlo Alberto, 2007. "Investment decisions, equivalent risk and bounded rationality," MPRA Paper 6073, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Yao Wu, 2025. "Limit Order Book Dynamics in Matching Markets: Microstructure, Spread, and Execution Slippage," Papers 2511.20606, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.
    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. 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.
    8. 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".
    9. 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.
    10. Caterina Cruciani & Carlo Romano Marcello Alessandro Santagiustina & Costanza Sartoris & Massimo Warglien, 2024. "Survey on experiments about trust and collaborative vs conflictual language," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-04922031, HAL.
    11. 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.
    12. Daniel Hausmann & Damian Läge, 2008. "Sequential evidence accumulation in decision making: The individual desired level of confidence can explain the extent of information acquisition," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 229-243, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Rieger, Marc Oliver & Wang, Mei & Hausmann, Daniel, 2021. "Pre-decisional information acquisition: Why do we pay too much for information? Brief report," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    15. Glöckner, Andreas & Betsch, Tilmann, 2008. "Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? An empirical test of the priority heuristic against cumulative prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 75-95, September.
    16. Gabriel Gershenfeld, 2015. "Conjoint Analysis for Ticket Offerings at the Cleveland Indians," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 45(2), pages 166-174, April.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Arndt Bröder & Ben Newell, 2008. "Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 205-214, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    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:upf:upfgen:709. 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: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.upf.edu/en/web/econ/ .

    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.