Sample decisions with description and experience

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Ronald Klingebiel, Feibai Zhu
{"title":"Sample decisions with description and experience","authors":"Ronald Klingebiel, Feibai Zhu","doi":"10.1017/s1930297500009360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decision makers weight small probabilities differently when sampling them and when seeing them stated. We disentangle to what extent the gap is due to how decision makers receive information (through description or experience), the literature’s prevailing focus, and what information they receive (population probabilities or sample frequencies), our novel explanation. The latter determines statistical confidence, the extent to which one can know that a choice is superior in expectation. Two lab studies, as well as a review of prior work, reveal sample decisions to respond to statistical confidence. More strongly, in fact, than decisions based on population probabilities, leading to higher payoffs in expectation. Our research thus not only offers a more robust method for identifying description-experience gaps. It also reveals how probability weighting in decisions based on samples — the typical format of real-world decisions — may actually come closer to an unbiased ideal than decisions based on fully specified probabilities — the format frequently used in decision science.","PeriodicalId":48045,"journal":{"name":"Judgment and Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Judgment and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009360","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decision makers weight small probabilities differently when sampling them and when seeing them stated. We disentangle to what extent the gap is due to how decision makers receive information (through description or experience), the literature’s prevailing focus, and what information they receive (population probabilities or sample frequencies), our novel explanation. The latter determines statistical confidence, the extent to which one can know that a choice is superior in expectation. Two lab studies, as well as a review of prior work, reveal sample decisions to respond to statistical confidence. More strongly, in fact, than decisions based on population probabilities, leading to higher payoffs in expectation. Our research thus not only offers a more robust method for identifying description-experience gaps. It also reveals how probability weighting in decisions based on samples — the typical format of real-world decisions — may actually come closer to an unbiased ideal than decisions based on fully specified probabilities — the format frequently used in decision science.
具有描述和经验的示例决策
决策者在对小概率进行抽样时和在看到它们陈述时对其进行不同的加权。我们理清了这种差距在多大程度上是由于决策者如何接收信息(通过描述或经验)、文献的主要焦点以及他们接收到的信息(群体概率或样本频率),这是我们的新颖解释。后者决定了统计置信度,即人们可以在多大程度上知道一个选择在预期中是优越的。两项实验室研究以及对先前工作的回顾揭示了样本决策对统计置信度的反应。事实上,这比基于总体概率的决策更有力,导致了更高的预期回报。因此,我们的研究不仅为识别描述经验差距提供了一种更稳健的方法。它还揭示了基于样本的决策(现实世界决策的典型格式)中的概率加权实际上可能比基于完全指定概率的决策(决策科学中经常使用的格式)更接近无偏的理想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Judgment and Decision Making
Judgment and Decision Making PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信