Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-lxspr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-07T17:57:45.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colour-coded decisions: an experiment on case-based decision theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Benjamin Radoc Open the ORCID record for Benjamin Radoc [Opens in a new window]
Benjamin Radoc*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines BSP Research Academy, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Manila, Philippines
*
bradoc@ateneo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decision makers typically possess limited knowledge on states of the world so that use of information from past similar experiences is reasonable. This analogical thinking is formalised by case-based decision theory (CBDT). We created a novel experimental setting to validate the predictive power of CBDT versus Bayesian reasoning. Participants encountered a salient but irrelevant cue which a Bayesian decision maker is likely to ignore but a case-based decision maker may use in assessing similarity. We find that although the irrelevant similarity cue was used, the pattern in participants’ decisions is neither case-based nor Bayesian. The results suggest that CBDT does not apply in simple decision settings where similarity cues are uninformative.

Keywords

Bayesian reasoningCase-based decisionGambler's fallacySimilarity

JEL classification

D9: Micro-Based Behavioral Economics‡ C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 10 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Behavioral and Experimental Economics for Innovative Policy-Making (Articles 1 to 3) , December 2024 , pp. 519 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2024.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ayton, P, Fischer, I. (2004). The hot hand fallacy and the gambler's fallacy: Two facets of subjective randomness. Memory & Cognition, 32, 8, 1369–1378. 10.3758/BF03206327.10.3758/BF03206327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G, DeGroot, M, Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 3, 226–232. 10.1002/bs.3830090304.10.1002/bs.3830090304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleichrodt, H, Filko, M, Kothiyal, A, Wakker, P. (2017). Making case-based decision theory directly observable. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 9, 1, 123–151.Google Scholar
Croson, R, Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 2, 448–474. 10.1257/jel.47.2.448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2001). A Theory of Case-Based Decisions, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511493539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2010). Case-Based Prediction, World Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I, Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-based decision theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 3, 605–639. 10.2307/2946694.10.2307/2946694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, C, Dutt, V. (2011). Instance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience. Psychological Review, 118, 4, 523–551. 10.1037/a0024558.10.1037/a0024558CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregan-Paxton, J, Cote, J. (2000). How do investors make predictions? Insights from analogical reasoning research. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 307–327. 10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<307::AID-BDM354>3.0.CO;2-3.10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<307::AID-BDM354>3.0.CO;2-33.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, B, Sarin, R, Watson, E. (2015). An experiment on case-based decision making. Theory and Decision, 79, 4, 639–666. 10.1007/s11238-015-9492-1.10.1007/s11238-015-9492-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R, Barron, G, Weber, E, Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 8, 534–539. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x.10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isoni, A, Loomes, G, Sugden, R. (2011). The willingness to pay/willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: Comment. The American Economic Review, 101, 991–1011. 10.1257/aer.101.2.991.10.1257/aer.101.2.991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, LR, Segal, U, Wang, T. (1993). The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism and generalized utility theories: Theoretical predictions and empirical observations. Theory and Decision, 34, 83–97. 10.1007/BF01074895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, A. (2000). Expected utility and case-based reasoning. Mathematical Social Sciences, 39, 1–12. 10.1016/S0165-4896(99)00008-6.10.1016/S0165-4896(99)00008-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ossadnik, W, Wilmsmann, D, Niemann, B. (2013). Experimental evidence on case-based decision theory. Theory and Decision, 75, 211–232. 10.1007/s11238-012-9333-4.10.1007/s11238-012-9333-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C, Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay/willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. The American Economic Review, 95, 3, 530–545. 10.1257/0002828054201387.10.1257/0002828054201387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radoc, B, Sugden, R, Turocy, TL. (2019). Correlation neglect and case-based decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 59, 23–49. 10.1007/s11166-019-09309-1.10.1007/s11166-019-09309-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 2, 111–133. 10.1023/A:1023042708217.10.1023/A:1023042708217CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidl, C. (2002). Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16, 5, 621–655. 10.1111/1467-6419.00184.10.1111/1467-6419.00184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. (2003). Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 111, 172–191. 10.1016/S0022-0531(03)00082-6.10.1016/S0022-0531(03)00082-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. (2004).(, Handbook of Utility Theory Volume 2: Extensions, Kluwer Academic, chapter Alternatives to Expected Utility: Foundations and Concepts.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 4, 327–352. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, DU, Mergenthaler-Canseco, M, Hertwig, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description-experience gap. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 140–176. 10.1037/bul0000115.10.1037/bul0000115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, J, King, CL. (2001). A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Economics Letters, 73, 293–300. 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00511-0.10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00511-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, DJ. (2003). Transfer of knowledge in economic decision-making: An overview. Greek Economic Review, 22, 2, 1–10.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Radoc supplementary material

Radoc supplementary material
Download Radoc supplementary material(File)
File 320.2 KB