IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpex/0308002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Heuristics Used By Humans With Prefrontal Cortex Damage: Toward An Empirical Model Of Phineas Gage

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Houser

    (George Mason University)

  • Kevin McCabe

    (George Mason University)

  • Michael Keane

    (Yale University)

  • Antoine Bechara

    (University of Iowa)

Abstract

In many research contexts it is necessary to group experimental subjects into behavioral “types.” Usually, this is done by pre-specifying a set of candidate decision-making heuristics and then assigning each subject to the heuristic that best describes his/her behavior. Such approaches might not perform well when used to explain the behavior of subjects with prefrontal cortex damage. The reason is that introspection is typically used to generate the candidate heuristic set, but this procedure is likely to fail when applied to the decision-making strategies of subjects with brain damage. This research uses the type classification approach introduced by Houser, Keane and McCabe (2002) to investigate the heuristics used by subjects in the gambling experiment (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio and Anderson, 1994). An advantage of our classification approach is that it does not require us to specify the nature of subjects’ heuristics in advance. Rather, both the number and nature of the heuristics used are discerned directly from the experimental data. Our sample includes normal subjects, as well as subjects with damage to the ventromedial (VM) area of the prefrontal cortex. Subjects are “clustered” according to similarities in their heuristic, and this clustering does not preclude some normal and VM subjects from using the same decision rule. Our results are consistent with what others have found in subsequent experimentation with VM patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Houser & Kevin McCabe & Michael Keane & Antoine Bechara, 2003. "Heuristics Used By Humans With Prefrontal Cortex Damage: Toward An Empirical Model Of Phineas Gage," Experimental 0308002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpex:0308002
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; prepared on IBM PC ; to print on PostScript; pages: 18; figures: included
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/exp/papers/0308/0308002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Houser, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2004. "How Do Behavioral Assumptions Affect Structural Inference? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22(1), pages 64-79, January.
    2. Daniel Houser & Michael Keane & Kevin McCabe, 2004. "Behavior in a Dynamic Decision Problem: An Analysis of Experimental Evidence Using a Bayesian Type Classification Algorithm," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 781-822, May.
    3. John Geweke & Michael P. Keane, 1996. "Bayesian inference for dynamic choice models without the need for dynamic programming," Working Papers 564, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    4. Geweke, John & Houser, Dan & Keane, Michael, 1999. "Simulation Based Inference for Dynamic Multinomial Choice Models," MPRA Paper 54279, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Houser, Daniel & Bechara, Antoine & Keane, Michael & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon, 2005. "Identifying individual differences: An algorithm with application to Phineas Gage," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 373-385, August.
    2. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    3. Gunnthorsdottir, Anna & Houser, Daniel & McCabe, Kevin, 2007. "Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 304-315, February.
    4. Schunk, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2009. "The relationship between risk attitudes and heuristics in search tasks: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 347-360, August.
    5. Rothlauf, Franz & Schunk, Daniel & Pfeiffer, Jella, 2005. "Classification of human decision behavior : finding modular decision rules with genetic algorithms," Papers 05-04, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    6. Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley Ruffle, 2006. "The Strategies Behind Their Actions: A Method To Infer Repeated-Game Strategies And An Application To Buyer Behavior," Departmental Working Papers 2005-04, McGill University, Department of Economics.
    7. Daniel Houser & Michael Keane & Kevin McCabe, 2004. "Behavior in a Dynamic Decision Problem: An Analysis of Experimental Evidence Using a Bayesian Type Classification Algorithm," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 781-822, May.
    8. Schunk, Daniel, 2005. "Search behaviour with reference point preferences : theory and experimental evidence," Papers 05-12, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    9. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    10. repec:rdg:wpaper:em-dp2011-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Susumu Imai & Neelam Jain & Andrew Ching, 2009. "Bayesian Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(6), pages 1865-1899, November.
    12. ENGLE-WARNICK, Jim & McCAUSLAND, William J. & MILLER, John H., 2004. "The Ghost in the Machine: Inferring Machine-Based Strategies from Observed Behavior," Cahiers de recherche 2004-11, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    13. Dina Tasneem & Audrey Azerot & Marine de Montaignac & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "A Laboratory Study of the E?ect of Financial Literacy Training on Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-24, CIRANO.
    14. David Zetland & Marina Della Giusta, 2011. "Focal Points, Gender Norms and Reciprocation in Public Good Games," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2011-01, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    15. David Zetland, 2013. "Water managers are selfish like us," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 14, pages 407-433, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Daniel Houser & Robert Kurzban, 2003. "Conditional cooperation and group dynamics: Experimental evidence from a sequential public goods game," Experimental 0307001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 21 Jan 2005.
    17. Dina Tasneem & Jim Engle-Warnick, 2018. "Decision Rules for Precautionary and Retirement Savings," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-22, CIRANO.
    18. Alexander L. Brown & Zhikang Eric Chua & Colin F. Camerer, 2009. "Learning and Visceral Temptation in Dynamic Saving Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(1), pages 197-231.
    19. Troske, Kenneth R. & Voicu, Alexandru, 2010. "Joint estimation of sequential labor force participation and fertility decisions using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 150-169, January.
    20. Kimbrough, E.O. & Vostroknutov, A., 2012. "Rules, rule-following and cooperation," Research Memorandum 053, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    21. Basit Zafar, 2011. "How Do College Students Form Expectations?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(2), pages 301-348.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experiments; heuristics; neuroeconomics; behavioral economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    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:wpa:wuwpex:0308002. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.