IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jesaex/v10y2024i2d10.1007_s40881-024-00177-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Radoc

    (Ateneo de Manila University
    Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Radoc, 2024. "Colour-coded decisions: an experiment on case-based decision theory," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 519-530, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-024-00177-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s40881-024-00177-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40881-024-00177-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40881-024-00177-3?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. Itzhak Gilboa & David Schmeidler, 1995. "Case-Based Decision Theory," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 605-639.
    2. Charles R. Plott & Kathryn Zeiler, 2005. "The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 530-545, June.
    3. Zhao, Jinhua & Kling, Catherine L., 2001. "A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 293-300, December.
    4. Gilboa,Itzhak & Schmeidler,David, 2001. "A Theory of Case-Based Decisions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521802345, January.
    5. Matsui, Akihiko, 2000. "Expected utility and case-based reasoning," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-12, January.
    6. Han Bleichrodt & Martin Filko & Amit Kothiyal & Peter P. Wakker, 2017. "Making Case-Based Decision Theory Directly Observable," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 123-151, February.
    7. Benjamin Radoc & Robert Sugden & Theodore L. Turocy, 2019. "Correlation neglect and case-based decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 23-49, August.
    8. Andrea Isoni & Graham Loomes & Robert Sugden, 2011. "The Willingness to Pay—Willingness to Accept Gap, the "Endowment Effect," Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 991-1011, April.
    9. Sugden, Robert, 2003. "Reference-dependent subjective expected utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 172-191, August.
    10. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    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. Benjamin Radoc, 2020. "Bandit with similarity information," Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Working Paper Series 202002, Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University.
    2. Todd Guilfoos & Andreas Duus Pape, 2020. "Estimating Case-Based Learning," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, September.
    3. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2013. "Dynamics of inductive inference in a unified framework," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(4), pages 1399-1432.
    4. Brit Grosskopf & Rajiv Sarin & Elizabeth Watson, 2015. "An experiment on case-based decision making," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 639-666, December.
    5. Christina McGranaghan & Steven G. Otto, 2022. "Choice uncertainty and the endowment effect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 83-104, August.
    6. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Dirk Wilmsmann & Benedikt Niemann, 2013. "Experimental evidence on case-based decision theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 211-232, August.
    7. Lindsay, Luke, 2019. "Adaptive loss aversion and market experience," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 43-61.
    8. Steven J. Humphrey & Luke Lindsay & Chris Starmer, 2017. "Consumption experience, choice experience and the endowment effect," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 109-120, December.
    9. Marek Kapera, 2022. "Learning own preferences through consumption," KAE Working Papers 2022-074, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    10. Kogler, Christoph & Kühberger, Anton & Gilhofer, Rainer, 2013. "Real and hypothetical endowment effects when exchanging lottery tickets: Is regret a better explanation than loss aversion?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 42-53.
    11. Todd Guilfoos & Andreas Pape, 2016. "Predicting human cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma using case-based decision theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 1-32, January.
    12. Oben K. Bayrak & John D. Hey, 2017. "Expected utility theory with imprecise probability perception: explaining preference reversals," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(13), pages 906-910, July.
    13. Breffle, William S. & Eiswerth, Mark E. & Muralidharan, Daya & Thornton, Jeffrey, 2015. "Understanding how income influences willingness to pay for joint programs: A more equitable value measure for the less wealthy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 17-25.
    14. Benjamin Radoc & Robert Sugden & Theodore L. Turocy, 2019. "Correlation neglect and case-based decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 23-49, August.
    15. Smith, Alec, 2019. "Lagged beliefs and reference-dependent utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 331-340.
    16. Ilke Aydogan & Yu Gao, 2020. "Experience and rationality under risk: re-examining the impact of sampling experience," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1100-1128, December.
    17. Cho, In-Koo & Matsui, Akihiko, 2005. "Learning aspiration in repeated games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 171-201, October.
    18. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    19. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Bayesian reasoning; Case-based decision; Gambler’s fallacy; Similarity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D9 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:spr:jesaex:v:10:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s40881-024-00177-3. 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.