When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect

We examine decision-making under risk in a laboratory experiment. The heart of our design examines how one's propensity to use Bayes' rule is affected by whether this rule is aligned with reinforcement or clashes with it. In some cases, we create environments where Bayesian updating after...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American economic review Jg. 95; H. 4; S. 1300 - 1309
Hauptverfasser: Charness, Gary, Levin, Dan
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Nashville American Economic Association 01.09.2005
Schlagworte:
Bayes rule
Bayesian analysis
Bayesian method
Binomials
Cost efficiency
Decision making
Decision theory
Economic costs
Economic theory
Economics
Emotions
Error rates
Errors
Expected utility
Experiments
Game theory
Heuristic
Heuristics
Investors
Laboratories
Payments
Psychological reinforcement
Reinforcement
Risk
Shorter Papers
Studies
Success
Utility theory
ISSN:0002-8282, 1944-7981
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We examine decision-making under risk in a laboratory experiment. The heart of our design examines how one's propensity to use Bayes' rule is affected by whether this rule is aligned with reinforcement or clashes with it. In some cases, we create environments where Bayesian updating after a successful outcome should lead a decision-maker to make a change, while no change should be made after observing an unsuccessful outcome. We observe striking patterns: When payoff reinforcement and Bayesian updating are aligned, nearly all people respond as expected. On the other hand, when these forces clash, around 50% of all decisions are inconsistent with Bayesian updating; a slight increase in the precision of the information and decrease in the complexity of the calculations does not lower the error rate. However, when a draw provides only information (and no payment), switching errors occur much less frequently, suggesting that the "emotional reinforcement" (affect) induced by payments is a critical factor in deviations from Bayesian updating. We also find considerable behavioral heterogeneity across the population. Finally, we see that people have a "taste for consistency" as voluntary draws are more likely to be repeated than draws that were required. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Bibliographie:SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0002-8282
1944-7981
DOI:10.1257/0002828054825583