IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/artefa/00700.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Three doors anomaly, "should I stay or should I go": an artefactual field experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Rocco Caferra
  • Alessia Casamassima
  • Alessandro Cascavilla
  • Andrea Morone
  • Paola Tiranzoni

Abstract

This work aims to identify and quantify the biases behind the anomalous behavior of people when they deal with the Three Doors dilemma, which is a really simple but counterintuitive game. Carrying out an artefactual field experiment and proposing eight different treatments to isolate the anomalies, we provide new interesting experimental evidence on the reasons why subjects fail to take the optimal decision. According to the experimental results, we can quantify the size and the impact of three main biases that explain the anomalous behavior of participants: Bayesian updating, illusion of control, and status quo bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Rocco Caferra & Alessia Casamassima & Alessandro Cascavilla & Andrea Morone & Paola Tiranzoni, 2020. "Three doors anomaly, "should I stay or should I go": an artefactual field experiment," Artefactual Field Experiments 00700, The Field Experiments Website.
    • Handle: RePEc:feb:artefa:00700
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00700.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. 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.
    3. repec:spr:thdchp:978-3-540-68437-4_10 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2003. "Learning to Open Monty Hall's Doors," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 235-251, November.
    5. Richard D. Gill, 2011. "The Monty Hall problem is not a probability puzzle (It's a challenge in mathematical modelling)," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 65(1), pages 58-71, February.
    6. Mohammed Abdellaoui & John D. Hey (ed.), 2008. "Advances in Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-540-68437-4, September.
    7. 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.
    8. Jan C. Schuller, 2012. "The malicious host: a minimax solution of the Monty Hall problem," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 215-221, April.
    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. Morone, Andrea & Santorsola, Marco & Tiranzoni, Paola, 2021. "Deal or no deal: comparing individual, group and couple choices in a risky context. Evidence from the Italian tv show edition," MPRA Paper 110618, 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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Engelmann, Dirk & Strobel, Martin, 2012. "Deconstruction and reconstruction of an anomaly," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 678-689.
    6. 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.
    7. Patt, Anthony G. & Bowles, Hannah Riley & Cash, David W., 2006. "Mechanisms for Enhancing the Credibility of an Adviser: Prepayment and Aligned Incentives," Working Paper Series rwp06-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(6), pages 1721-1770, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Ernst Fehr & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2005. "Individual Irrationality and Aggregate Outcomes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 43-66, Fall.
    11. 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.
    12. Mark Whitmeyer, 2017. "The Monty Hall Problem as a Bayesian Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-21, July.
    13. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "The False Consensus Effect: Deconstruction and Reconstruction of an Anomaly," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp233, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    14. 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).
    15. David V. Budescu & Boris Maciejovsky, 2005. "The Effect of Payoff Feedback and Information Pooling on Reasoning Errors: Evidence from Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1829-1843, December.
    16. Duncan James & Daniel Friedman & Christina Louie & Taylor O'Meara, 2018. "Dissecting The Monty Hall Anomaly," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1817-1826, July.
    17. Kendall, Chad & Oprea, Ryan, 2018. "Are biased beliefs fit to survive? An experimental test of the market selection hypothesis," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 342-371.
    18. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "A Bridge from Monty Hall to the Hot Hand: Restricted Choice, Selection Bias, and Empirical Practice," OSF Preprints dmgtp, Center for Open Science.
    19. 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.
    20. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2019. "A Bridge from Monty Hall to the Hot Hand: The Principle of Restricted Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 144-162, Summer.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:feb:artefa:00700. 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: Francesca Pagnotta (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.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.