Small feedback‐based decisions and their limited correspondence to description‐based decisions

The present paper explores situations in which the information available to decision makers is limited to feedback concerning the outcomes of their previous decisions. The results reveal that experience in these situations can lead to deviations from maximization in the opposite direction of the deviations observed when the decisions are made based on a description of the choice problem. Experience was found to lead to a reversed common ratio/certainty effect, more risk seeking in the gain than in the loss domain, and to an underweighting of small probabilities. Only one of the examined properties of description-based decisions, loss aversion, seems to emerge robustly in these ‘feedback-based’ decisions. These results are summarized with a simple model that illustrates that all the unique properties of feedback-based decisions can be a product of a tendency to rely on recent outcomes. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  I. Erev,et al.  On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. , 2005, Psychological review.

[2]  Authors' Biographies , 2005 .

[3]  I. Erev,et al.  Frequent probabilistic punishment in law enforcement , 2002 .

[4]  I. Erev,et al.  The Medium Prizes Paradox: Evidence From a Simulated Casino , 2001 .

[5]  Farshid Vahid,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: A Simple Dynamic Model of Choice , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[6]  Alyce M. Dickinson,et al.  CRITICAL REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Behavioral Safety Research in Manufacturing Settings: A Review of the Literature , 2000 .

[7]  Y. Kareev.  Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations. , 2000, Psychological review.

[8]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Experience‐weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games , 1999 .

[9]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  The effect of adding a constant to all payoffs: experimental investigation, and implications for reinforcement learning models , 1999 .

[10]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  D. Goldstein,et al.  Betting on one good reason : The Take the Best heuristic , 1999 .

[12]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[13]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence , 1998 .

[14]  A. Roth,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria , 1998 .

[15]  Darryl A. Seale,et al.  Strategic Play and Adaptive Learning in the Sealed-Bid Bargaining Mechanism. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[16]  F. Tang,et al.  Learning and incentive‐Compatible Mechanisms for Public Goods Provision: An Experimental Study , 1998, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  Erev,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Accidents and Decision Making under Uncertainty: a Comparison of Four Models , 2022 .

[18]  Daniel Friedman,et al.  A comparison of learning and replicator dynamics using experimental data , 1998 .

[19]  I. Erev,et al.  Signal detection by human observers: a cutoff reinforcement learning model of categorization decisions under uncertainty. , 1998, Psychological review.

[20]  Anthony N. Doob,et al.  Deterring economic crimes: The case of tax evasion. , 1998 .

[21]  I. Erev,et al.  Introduction to this Special Issue on Stochastic and Cognitive Models of Confidence , 1997 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test , 1997 .

[23]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Signalling and Adaptive Learning in an Entry Limit Pricing Game , 1997 .

[24]  J. Potters,et al.  An experiment on risk taking and evaluation periods , 1997 .

[25]  Lola L. Lopes.  When Time Is of the Essence: Averaging, Aspiration, and the Short Run , 1996 .

[26]  David M. Messick,et al.  Individual Heuristics and the Dynamics of Cooperation in Large Groups. , 1995 .

[27]  I. Erev,et al.  Comonotonic independence: The critical test between classical and rank-dependent utility theories , 1994 .

[28]  R. Selten,et al.  Experimental Sealed Bid First Price Auctions with Directly Observed Bid Functions , 1994 .

[29]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Utility maximization and melioration: Internalities in individual choice , 1993 .

[30]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[31]  R. Thaler,et al.  Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle , 1993 .

[32]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[33]  L J Blincoe,et al.  The economic cost of motor vehicle crashes, 1990 , 1992 .

[34]  G. Keren.  Calibration and probability judgements: Conceptual and methodological issues , 1991 .

[35]  J. Kagel,et al.  Animals' Choices over Uncertain Outcomes: Further Experimental Results , 1991 .

[36]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Time-inconsistent Preferences and Consumer Self-Control , 1991 .

[37]  Douglas H. Wedell,et al.  Moderation of Preference Reversals in the Long Run , 1990 .

[38]  Willem A. Wagenaar,et al.  Violation of utility theory in unique and repeated gambles , 1987 .

[39]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Risk: The Long and the Short. , 1983 .

[40]  Lola L. Lopes.  Decision Making in the Short Run. , 1981 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[42]  J. L. Myers,et al.  Contingent gains and losses in a risk-taking situation , 1965 .

[43]  M. Allais.  Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[44]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk , 1948, Journal of Political Economy.

[45]  K. Duncker.  Lernen und einsicht im dienst der Zielerreichung , 1936 .

[46]  E. Thorndike.  “Animal Intelligence” , 1898, Nature.