IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/26372.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Compressed environments: Unbounded optimizers should sometimes ignore information

Author

Listed:
  • Berg, Nathan
  • Hoffrage, Ulrich

Abstract

Given free information and unlimited processing power, should decision algorithms use as much information as possible? A formal model of the decision making environment is developed to address this question and provide conditions under which informationally frugal algorithms, without any information or processing costs whatsoever, are optimal. One cause of compression that allows optimal algorithms to rationally ignore information is inverse movement of payoffs and probabilities (e.g., high payoffs occur with low probably and low payoffs occur with high probability). If inversely related payoffs and probabilities cancel out, then predictors that correlate with payoffs and consequently condition the probabilities associated with different payoffs will drop out of the expected-payoff objective function, severing the link between information and optimal action rules. Stochastic payoff processes in which rational ignoring occurs are referred to as compressed environments, because optimal action depends on a reduced-dimension subset of the environmental parameters. This paper considers benefits and limitations of economic models versus other methods for studying links between environmental structure and the real-world success of simple decision procedures. Different methods converge on the normative proposition of ecological rationality, as opposed to axiomatic rationality based on informational efficiency and internal consistency axioms, as a superior framework for comparing the effectiveness of decision strategies and prescribing decision algorithms in application.

Suggested Citation

  • Berg, Nathan & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2010. "Compressed environments: Unbounded optimizers should sometimes ignore information," MPRA Paper 26372, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:26372
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26372/1/MPRA_paper_26372.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura Martignon & Ulrich Hoffrage, 2002. "Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 29-71, February.
    2. Nathan Berg, 2005. "Decision-making environments in which unboundedly rational decision makers choose to ignore relevant information," Global Business and Economics Review, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(1), pages 59-73.
    3. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2004. "Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less 'more'?," Economics Working Papers 742, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Oct 2004.
    4. Berg, Nathan & Hoffrage, Ulrich, 2008. "Rational ignoring with unbounded cognitive capacity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 792-809, December.
    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. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    2. Robin Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "On heuristic and linear models of judgment: Mapping the demand for knowledge," Economics Working Papers 974, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    3. Monti, Marco & Pelligra, Vittorio & Martignon, Laura & Berg, Nathan, 2014. "Retail investors and financial advisors: New evidence on trust and advice taking heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1749-1757.
    4. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Song Lin & Juanjuan Zhang & John R. Hauser, 2015. "Learning from Experience, Simply," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, January.
    6. 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.
    7. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    8. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    9. Carlos Sáenz-Royo, 2017. "A plausible Decision Heuristics Model: Fallibility of human judgment as an endogenous problem," Working Papers 2017/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:5:p:403-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Woike, Jan K. & Hoffrage, Ulrich & Petty, Jeffrey S., 2015. "Picking profitable investments: The success of equal weighting in simulated venture capitalist decision making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1705-1716.
    12. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:195-204 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Michael D. Lee & Shunan Zhang, 2012. "Evaluating the coherence of Take-the-best in structured environments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 360-372, July.
    15. Arndt Bröder & Ben Newell, 2008. "Challenging some common beliefs: Empirical work within the adaptive toolbox metaphor," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 205-214, March.
    16. Berg, Nathan & Prakhya, Srinivas & Ranganathan, Kavitha, 2018. "A satisficing approach to eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 127-140.
    17. Nathaniel D. Phillips & Hansjörg Neth & Jan K. Woike & Wolfgang Gaissmaier, 2017. "FFTrees: A toolbox to create, visualize, and evaluate fast-and-frugal decision trees," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(4), pages 344-368, July.
    18. Nathan Berg & Yuki Watanabe, 2020. "Conservation of behavioral diversity: on nudging, paternalism-induced monoculture, and the social value of heterogeneous beliefs and behavior," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 19(1), pages 103-120, June.
    19. Oxoby, Robert J., 2007. "The Effect of Incentive Structure on Heuristic Decision Making: The Proportion Heuristic," IZA Discussion Papers 2857, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Flynn, Sean Masaki & Donnelly, Michael, 2012. "Does labor contract completeness drive unionization? Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 445-454.
    21. Rajeev Kohli & Khaled Boughanmi & Vikram Kohli, 2019. "Randomized Algorithms for Lexicographic Inference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 357-375, March.
    22. Markus Pasche, 2008. "Zum Erklärungsgehalt der verhaltensorientierten Spieltheorie," Jena Research Papers in Business and Economics - Working and Discussion Papers (Expired!) 04/2008, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, School of Economics and Business Administration.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ecological rationality; Bounded rationality; Frugality; Simplicity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:pra:mprapa:26372. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.