Skip to main content
Log in

Do people plan?

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We report the results of an experimental investigation of a key axiom of economic theories of dynamic decision making—namely, that agents plan. Inferences from previous investigations have been confounded with issues concerning the preference functionals of the agents. Here, we present an innovative experimental design which is driven purely by dominance: if preferences satisfy dominance, we can infer whether subjects are planning or not. We implement three sets of experiments: the first two (the Individual Treatments) in which the same player takes decisions both in the present and the future; and the third (the Pairs Treatment) in which different players take decisions at different times. The two Individual treatments differed in that, in one, the subjects played sequentially, while, in the other, the subjects had to pre-commit to their future move. In all contexts, according to economic theory, the players in the present should anticipate the decision of the player in the future. We find that over half the participants in all three experimental treatments do not appear to be planning ahead; moreover, their ability to plan ahead does not improve with experience, except possibly when we force subjects to pre-commit to their future decision. These findings identify an important lacuna in economic theories, both for individual behaviour and for behaviour in games.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barkan, R., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1999). Changing plans: dynamic inconsistency and the effect of experience on the reference point. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 547–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beard, T. R., & Beil, R. O. (1994). Do people rely on the self-interested maximization of others? An experimental test. Management Science, 40, 252–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busemeyer, J. R., Weg, E., Barkan, R., Li, X., & Ma, Z. (2000). Dynamic consequential consistency of choices between paths of decision trees. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 79, 530–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C. S., & Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: an experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108, 1362–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C. S., & Sugden, R. (2004). Dynamic decisions under uncertainty: some recent evidence from economics and psychology. In I. Brocas & J. D. Carrillo (Eds.), The psychology of economic decisions : Vol. 2. Reasons and choices. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. D. (2002). Experimental economics and the theory of decision making under risk and uncertainty. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 28, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hey, J. D. (2003). Are revealed intentions possible? (Discussion Paper). University of York.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John D. Hey.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bone, J., Hey, J.D. & Suckling, J. Do people plan?. Exp Econ 12, 12–25 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9187-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9187-8

Keywords

JEL

Navigation