Decisions from Experience

Author(s):  
Ralph Hertwig
Cognition ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Hertwig ◽  
Timothy J. Pleskac

Cognition ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 170 ◽  
pp. 209-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Weiss-Cohen ◽  
Emmanouil Konstantinidis ◽  
Maarten Speekenbrink ◽  
Nigel Harvey

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 (42) ◽  
pp. e2108507118
Author(s):  
Kinneret Teodorescu ◽  
Ori Plonsky ◽  
Shahar Ayal ◽  
Rachel Barkan

External enforcement policies aimed to reduce violations differ on two key components: the probability of inspection and the severity of the punishment. Different lines of research offer different insights regarding the relative importance of each component. In four studies, students and Prolific crowdsourcing participants (Ntotal = 816) repeatedly faced temptations to commit violations under two enforcement policies. Controlling for expected value, we found that a policy combining a high probability of inspection with a low severity of fines (HILS) was more effective than an economically equivalent policy that combined a low probability of inspection with a high severity of fines (LIHS). The advantage of prioritizing inspection frequency over punishment severity (HILS over LIHS) was greater for participants who, in the absence of enforcement, started out with a higher violation rate. Consistent with studies of decisions from experience, frequent enforcement with small fines was more effective than rare severe fines even when we announced the severity of the fine in advance to boost deterrence. In addition, in line with the phenomenon of underweighting of rare events, the effect was stronger when the probability of inspection was rarer (as in most real-life inspection probabilities) and was eliminated under moderate inspection probabilities. We thus recommend that policymakers looking to effectively reduce recurring violations among noncriminal populations should consider increasing inspection rates rather than punishment severity.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilke Aydogan

Prior beliefs and their updating play a crucial role in decisions under uncertainty, and theories about them have been well established in classical Bayesianism. Yet, they are almost absent for ambiguous decisions from experience. This paper proposes a new decision model that incorporates the role of prior beliefs, beyond the role of ambiguity attitudes, into the analysis of such decisions. Hence, it connects ambiguity theories, popular in economics, with decision from experience, popular (mostly) in psychology, to the benefit of both. A reanalysis of some existing data sets from the literature on decisions from experience shows that the model that incorporates prior beliefs into the estimation of subjective probabilities outperforms the commonly used model that approximates subjective probabilities with observed relative frequencies. Controlling for subjective priors, we obtain more accurate measurements of ambiguity attitudes, and thus a new explanation of the gap between decision from description and decision from experience. This paper was accepted by Manel Baucells, decision analysis.


2017 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 2048-2059 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Madan ◽  
Elliot A. Ludvig ◽  
Marcia L. Spetch

People's risk preferences differ for choices based on described probabilities versus those based on information learned through experience. For decisions from description, people are typically more risk averse for gains than for losses. In contrast, for decisions from experience, people are sometimes more risk seeking for gains than losses, especially for choices with the possibility of extreme outcomes (big wins or big losses), which are systematically overweighed in memory. Using a within-subject design, this study evaluated whether this memory bias plays a role in the differences in risky choice between description and experience. As in previous studies, people were more risk seeking for losses than for gains in description but showed the opposite pattern in experience. People also more readily remembered the extreme outcomes and judged them as having occurred more frequently. These memory biases correlated with risk preferences in decisions from experience but not in decisions from description. These results suggest that systematic memory biases may be responsible for some of the differences in risk preference across description and experience.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot A. Ludvig ◽  
Christopher R. Madan ◽  
Marcia L. Spetch

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document