IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-13-00860.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bias-Trigger Manipulation and Task-Form Understanding in Monty Hall

Author

Listed:
  • Kim Kaivanto

    (Lancaster University)

  • Eike B. Kroll

    (Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Michael Zabinski

    (Trinity College Dublin)

Abstract

Monty Hall is a difficult task which triggers multiple biases. With sophisticated subjects and treatments that reverse and eliminate these triggers, non-rational choice is greatly reduced. Among task-familiar subjects, non-rational choice can can fall to background-error levels. But as our data also show, task-form recognition is necessary but not sufficient for rational choice when the task calls for conditional probability reasoning rather than simple rule-based behavior, as in e.g. 'Switch in Monty Hall.' Task-form understanding, a more stringent requirement, proves to be necessary and sufficient for rational choice in generalized Monty Hall conditional probability reasoning tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim Kaivanto & Eike B. Kroll & Michael Zabinski, 2014. "Bias-Trigger Manipulation and Task-Form Understanding in Monty Hall," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 34(1), pages 89-98.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-13-00860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2014/Volume34/EB-14-V34-I1-P10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Slembeck, Tilman & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2004. "Do institutions promote rationality?: An experimental study of the three-door anomaly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 337-350, July.
    2. repec:bla:jfinan:v:59:y:2004:i:3:p:969-998 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Friedman, Daniel, 1998. "Monty Hall's Three Doors: Construction and Deconstruction of a Choice Anomaly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 933-946, September.
    4. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    5. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    6. Rydval, Ondrej & Ortmann, Andreas, 2004. "How financial incentives and cognitive abilities affect task performance in laboratory settings: an illustration," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 315-320, December.
    7. Eileen Chou & Margaret McConnell & Rosemarie Nagel & Charles Plott, 2009. "The control of game form recognition in experiments: understanding dominant strategy failures in a simple two person “guessing” game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 159-179, June.
    8. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2003. "Learning to Open Monty Hall's Doors," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 235-251, November.
    9. Ferraro Paul J & Vossler Christian A, 2010. "The Source and Significance of Confusion in Public Goods Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaivanto, Kim & Kwon, Winston, 2015. "The Precautionary Principle as a Heuristic Patch," MPRA Paper 67036, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Engelmann, Dirk & Strobel, Martin, 2012. "Deconstruction and reconstruction of an anomaly," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 678-689.
    2. Sebastian Fehrler & Baiba Renerte & Irenaeus Wolff, 2020. "Beliefs about Others: A Striking Example of Information Neglect," TWI Research Paper Series 118, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    3. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    4. Lunawat, Radhika, 2021. "Learning from trading activity in laboratory security markets with higher-order uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Andrea Morone & Annamaria Fiore, 2007. "Monty Hall's Three Doors for Dummies," SERIES 0012, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza - Università degli Studi di Bari "Aldo Moro", revised Feb 2007.
    6. Ido Erev & Sharon Gilat-Yihyie & Davide Marchiori & Doron Sonsino, 2015. "On loss aversion, level-1 reasoning, and betting," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(1), pages 113-133, February.
    7. David V. Budescu & Boris Maciejovsky, "undated". "Reasoning and Institutions: Do Markets Facilitate Logical Reasoning in the Wason Selection Task?," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-04, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    8. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2011. "Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner's dilemma game," MPRA Paper 30856, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Andrea Morone & Rocco Caferra & Alessia Casamassima & Alessandro Cascavilla & Paola Tiranzoni, 2021. "Three doors anomaly, “should I stay, or should I go”: an artefactual field experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(3), pages 357-376, October.
    10. Sean Duffy & J. J. Naddeo & David Owens & John Smith, 2024. "Cognitive Load and Mixed Strategies: On Brains and Minimax," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(03), pages 1-34, September.
    11. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2014. "Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner's dilemma game: Are there brains in games?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    12. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2018. "Cooperation in public good games. Calculated or confused?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-203.
    13. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.
    14. Peter Katuščák & Tomáš Miklánek, 2023. "What drives conditional cooperation in public good games?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 435-467, April.
    15. Philipp E. Otto, 2022. "Monty Hall three door ’anomaly’ revisited: a note on deferment in an extensive form game," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 25-35, June.
    16. Boris Maciejovsky & Matthias Sutter & David V. Budescu & Patrick Bernau, 2013. "Teams Make You Smarter: How Exposure to Teams Improves Individual Decisions in Probability and Reasoning Tasks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(6), pages 1255-1270, June.
    17. Brain Kluger & Daniel Friedman, 2006. "Financial Engineering and Rationality: Experimental Evidence Based on the Monty Hall Problem," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 007, University of Siena.
    18. David V. Budescu & Boris Maciejovsky, 2004. "The Effect of Monetary Feedback and Information Spillovers on Cognitive Errors: Evidence from Competitive Markets," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    19. Daniel W. Elfenbein & Anne Marie Knott & Rachel Croson, 2017. "Equity stakes and exit: An experimental approach to decomposing exit delay," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 278-299, February.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monty Hall; task-form understanding; bias triggers; default effect; illusion of control; errors of omission and commission;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-13-00860. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.