IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i5p1165-d1081680.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Avoiding the Worst Decisions: A Simulation and Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Kazuhisa Takemura

    (Center for Decision Research, Waseda University, Tokyo 162-8644, Japan
    Department of Psychology, Waseda University, Tokyo 162-8644, Japan)

  • Yuki Tamari

    (School of Management and Information, University of Shizuoka, Shizuoka 422-8526, Japan)

  • Takashi Ideno

    (School of Management, Tokyo University of Science, Tokyo 162-8601, Japan)

Abstract

Many practical decisions are more realistic concerning preventing bad decisions than seeking better ones. However, there has been no behavioral decision theory research on avoiding the worst decisions. This study is the first behavioral decision research on decision strategies from the perspective of avoiding the worst decisions. We conducted a computer simulation with the Mersenne Twister method and a psychological experiment using the monitoring information acquisition method for two-stage decision strategies of all combinations for different decision strategies: lexicographic, lexicographic semi-order, elimination by aspect, conjunctive, disjunctive, weighted additive, equally weighted additive, additive difference, and a majority of confirming dimensions. The rate of choosing the least expected utility value among the alternatives was computed as the rate of choosing the worst alternative in each condition. The results suggest that attention-based decision rules such as disjunctive strategy lead to a worse decision, and that striving to make the best choice can conversely often lead to the worst outcome. From the simulation and the experiment, we concluded that simple decision strategies such as considering what is most important can lead to avoiding the worst decisions. The findings of this study provide practical implications for decision support in emergency situations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kazuhisa Takemura & Yuki Tamari & Takashi Ideno, 2023. "Avoiding the Worst Decisions: A Simulation and Experiment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:5:p:1165-:d:1081680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/5/1165/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/5/1165/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rajeev Kohli & Kamel Jedidi, 2007. "Representation and Inference of Lexicographic Preference Models and Their Variants," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 380-399, 05-06.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, September.
    3. Uwe Dulleck & Franz Hackl & Bernhard Weiss & Rudolf Winter‐Ebmer, 2011. "Buying Online: An Analysis of Shopbot Visitors," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 12(4), pages 395-408, November.
    4. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    5. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:403-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Allenby, Greg M., 2017. "Structural forecasts for marketing data," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 433-441.
    8. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
    9. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Assele, Samson Yaekob & Meulders, Michel & Vandebroek, Martina, 2022. "The value of consideration data in a discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    11. Michael Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "Comparing Alternative Models Of Heterogeneity In Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 1018-1045, September.
    12. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    13. Pathak, Parag A. & Shi, Peng, 2021. "How well do structural demand models work? Counterfactual predictions in school choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 161-195.
    14. Bräuning, Michael & Hüllermeier, Eyke & Keller, Tobias & Glaum, Martin, 2017. "Lexicographic preferences for predictive modeling of human decision making: A new machine learning method with an application in accounting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 295-306.
    15. Debasis Mishra & Kolagani Paramahamsa, 2018. "Selling to a naive agent with two rationales," Discussion Papers 18-03, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi.
    16. Oded Netzer & Olivier Toubia & Eric Bradlow & Ely Dahan & Theodoros Evgeniou & Fred Feinberg & Eleanor Feit & Sam Hui & Joseph Johnson & John Liechty & James Orlin & Vithala Rao, 2008. "Beyond conjoint analysis: Advances in preference measurement," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 337-354, December.
    17. Uwe Dulleck & Franz Hackl & Bernhard Weiss & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2008. "Buying Online: Sequential Decision Making by Shopbot Visitors," NCER Working Paper Series 31, National Centre for Econometric Research.
    18. Luís Cabral, 2012. "Lock in and switch: Asymmetric information and new product diffusion," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 375-392, September.
    19. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    20. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    21. Jeffrey E. Harris & Mariana Gerstenblüth & Patricia Triunfo, 2018. "Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0218, Department of Economics - dECON.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:5:p:1165-:d:1081680. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.