IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v51y2001i2p217-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple-Stage Decision-Making: The Effect of Planning Horizon Length on Dynamic Consistency

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Johnson
  • Jerome Busemeyer

Abstract

Many decisions involve multiple stages of choices and events, and these decisions can be represented graphically as decision trees. Optimal decision strategies for decision trees are commonly determined by a backward induction analysis that demands adherence to three fundamental consistency principles: dynamic, consequential, and strategic. Previous research (Busemeyer et al. 2000, J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129, 530) found that decision-makers tend to exhibit violations of dynamic and strategic consistency at rates significantly higher than choice inconsistency across various levels of potential reward. The current research extends these findings under new conditions; specifically, it explores the extent to which these principles are violated as a function of the planning horizon length of the decision tree. Results from two experiments suggest that dynamic inconsistency increases as tree length increases; these results are explained within a dynamic approach–avoidance framework. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Johnson & Jerome Busemeyer, 2001. "Multiple-Stage Decision-Making: The Effect of Planning Horizon Length on Dynamic Consistency," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 217-246, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:51:y:2001:i:2:p:217-246
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1015507110940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1015507110940
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1015507110940?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Loomes, Graham & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Observing Violations of Transitivity by Experimental Methods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(2), pages 425-439, March.
    3. Machina, Mark J, 1989. "Dynamic Consistency and Non-expected Utility Models of Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 1622-1668, December.
    4. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
    5. Cubitt, Robin P & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and the Common Ratio Effect: An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(450), pages 1362-1380, September.
    6. Gneezy, U., 1996. "Probability Judgements in Multi-Stage Problems : Experimental Evidence of Systematic Biases," Discussion Paper 1996-01, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Ford, J. Kevin & Schmitt, Neal & Schechtman, Susan L. & Hults, Brian M. & Doherty, Mary L., 1989. "Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 75-117, February.
    8. Sarin, Rakesh & Wakker, Peter P, 1998. "Dynamic Choice and NonExpected Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 87-119, November.
    9. Hammond, P.J. & , ., 1987. "Consequentialist foundations for expected utility," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1987016, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    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. Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2012. "Are bygones bygones?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 185-202, August.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2005-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2010. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2010-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    2. Eva D. Regnier & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2019. "The Hurricane Decision Simulator: A Tool for Marine Forces in New Orleans to Practice Operations Management in Advance of a Hurricane," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 103-120, January.
    3. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Individual Dynamic Choice Behaviour and the Common Consequence Effect," ThE Papers 17/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    4. Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2012. "Are bygones bygones?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 185-202, August.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2005-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2010. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2010-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2010. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2010-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
      • Robin Cubitt & Maria Ruiz-Martos & Chris Starmer, 2005. "Are bygones bygones?," Discussion Papers 2005-21, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2018. "Sequential Common Consequence Effect and Incentives," ThE Papers 18/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    6. Johnson, Joseph G. & Raab, Markus, 2003. "Take The First: Option-generation and resulting choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 215-229, July.
    7. Subhasish Dugar & Haimanti Bhattacharya, 2008. "The Power of Reasoning: Experimental Evidence," Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, University of Utah 2008_20, University of Utah, Department of Economics.
    8. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Random Lottery Incentive Mechanism in Dynamic Choice Experiments," ThE Papers 17/02, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    9. Hammond, Peter J. & Zank, Horst, 2013. "Rationality and Dynamic Consistency under Risk and Uncertainty," Economic Research Papers 270426, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.

    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. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2018. "Sequential Common Consequence Effect and Incentives," ThE Papers 18/04, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    2. A. Nebout, 2014. "Sequential decision making without independence: a new conceptual approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 85-110, June.
    3. Nathalie Etchart, 2002. "Adequate Moods for non-eu Decision Making in a Sequential Framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 1-28, February.
    4. Ronald Bosman & Frans Van Winden, 2010. "Global Risk, Investment and Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(307), pages 451-471, July.
    5. Michele Bernasconi, 2002. "How should income be divided? questionnaire evidence from the theory of “Impartial preferences”," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 163-195, December.
    6. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Do Bayesians Learn Their Way Out of Ambiguity?," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 269-285, December.
    7. ,, 2011. "Dynamic choice under ambiguity," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(3), September.
    8. Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2017. "Individual Dynamic Choice Behaviour and the Common Consequence Effect," ThE Papers 17/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    9. Rawley Heimer & Zwetelina Iliewa & Alex Imax & Martin Weber, 2021. "Dynamic Inconsistency in Risky Choice: Evidence from the Lab and Field," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 094, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    10. John Hey & Massimo Paradiso., "undated". "Dynamic Choice and Timing-Independence: an experimental investigation," Discussion Papers 99/26, Department of Economics, University of York.
    11. John D. Hey & Gianna Lotito, 2018. "Naive, resolute or sophisticated? A study of dynamic decision making," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 11, pages 275-299, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Elif Incekara-Hafalir & Eungsik Kim & Jack D. Stecher, 2021. "Is the Allais paradox due to appeal of certainty or aversion to zero?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 751-771, September.
    13. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    14. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    15. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    16. Vadym Lepetyuk & Christian A. Stoltenberg, 2012. "Reconciling consumption inequality with income inequality," Working Papers. Serie AD 2012-19, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    17. Marc Fleurbaey, 2010. "Assessing Risky Social Situations," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 118(4), pages 649-680, August.
    18. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    19. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    20. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.

    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:kap:theord:v:51:y:2001:i:2:p:217-246. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.