Journal of Economics

, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 167–196 | Cite as

How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment

Article

Abstract

The present paper reports on a political choice experiment with elected real-world politicians. A questionnaire on political and public issues is used to examine whether prospect theory predicts the responses of experts from the field better than rational choice theory. The results indicate that framing effects do not disappear with expertise.

Keywords

subject pool effect subject surrogacy expected utility theory prospect theory 

JEL Classifications

C91 D72 D81 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdel-Khalik A. R. (1974). On the Efficiency of Subject Surrogation in Accounting Research. The Accounting Review 49: 743–50 Google Scholar
  2. Abdolmohammadi M. and Wright A. (1987). An Examination of the Effects of Experience and Task Complexity on Audit Judgements. The Accounting Review 62: 1–13 Google Scholar
  3. Allais M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risqué: critique des postulats et axioms de l'ecole americaine. Econometrica 21: 503–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson M. and Sunder S. (1995). Professional Traders as Intuitive Bayesians. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64: 185–202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arrow K. J. (1982). Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics. Economic Inquiry 20: 1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, S. B., and Cech, P. (1996): “Subject Pool Choice and Treatment Effects in Economic Laboratory Experiments.” In Research in Experimental Economics 6, edited by M. Isaac, pp. 239–92.Google Scholar
  7. Bernoulli D. (1953). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica 22: 23–36 (original 1738) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birnbaum M. H. (2005). New Paradoxes of Risky Decision Making. Mimeo California State University, Fullerton Google Scholar
  9. Buchan N. R., Johnson E. J. and Croson R. (2002). Trust, Reciprocity and Altruism in China, Korea, Japan and the United States. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Mimeo (American Economic Review, forthcoming) Google Scholar
  10. Burns P. (1985). Experience and Decisionmaking: a Comparison of Students and Businessmen in a Simulated Progressive Auction. In: Smith, V. (eds) Research in Experimental Economics 3, pp. JAI Press, Greenwich Google Scholar
  11. Davis and Solomon (1989). Experience, Expertise and Expert-performance Research in Public Accounting. Journal of Accounting Literature 8: 150–64 Google Scholar
  12. DeJong D., Forsythe R. and Uecker W. (1988). A Note on the Use of Businessmen in Sealed Offer Markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 9: 87–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dyer D., Kagel J. and Levin D. (1989). A Comparison of Naive and Experienced Bidders in Common Value Auctions: a Laboratory Analysis. Economic Journal 99: 108–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagley, N. S., and Kruger, L. (1986): “The Effect of Problem Framing on the Program Choices of School Psychologists.” Paper presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Fagley N. S. and Miller P. M. (1987). The Effects of Decision Framing on Choice of Risky vs Certain Options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39: 264–77 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer G., Hoffrage U. and Kleinbölting H. (1991). Probabilistic Mental Models: a Brunswikian Theory of Confidence. Psychological Review 98: 506–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glaser, M., Langer, T., and Weber, M. (2003): On the Trend Recognition and Forecasting Ability of Professional Traders. CEPR Discussion paper 3904, University Mannheim.Google Scholar
  18. Grether D. M. and Plott C. R. (1982). Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon. American Economic Review 69: 623–38 Google Scholar
  19. Goldberg L. R. (1959). The Effectiveness of Clinicians’ Judgments: the Diagnosis of Organic Brain Damage from the Bender-Gestalt Test. Journal of Consulting Psychology 23: 25–33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hershey J. C. and Schoemaker P. J. H. (1980). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 25: 395–418 Google Scholar
  21. Hofstedt T. R. (1972). Some Behavioral Parameters of Financial Analysis. The Accounting Review 47: 679–92 Google Scholar
  22. Hong J. T. and Plott C. R. (1982). Rate Filing Policies for Inland Water Transportation: an Experimental Approach. The Bell Journal of Economics 13: 1–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Isaac R. M., McCue K. and Plott C. (1985). Public Goods Provision in an Experimental Environment. Journal of Public Economics 26: 51–74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman D. and Tversky A. (1979). Prospect Theory: an Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47: 263–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kinder D. and Palfrey T. (1993). On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science. In: Kinder, D. and Palfrey, T. (eds) Experimental Foundations of Political Science, pp. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Google Scholar
  26. King R. R., Smith V. L., Williams A. W. and Van Boening M. (1992). The Robustness of Bubbles and Crashes in Experimental Stock Markets. In: Prigogine, I., Day, R. H., and Chen, R. (eds) Evolutionary Dynamics and Nonlinear Economics – a Transdisciplinary Dialogue, pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
  27. Kühberger A. (1995). The Framing of Decisions: A New Look at Old Problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62(2): 230–40 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kühberger A. (1998). The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: a Meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75(1): 23–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin I. P., Schneider S. L. and Gaeth G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: a Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76(2): 149–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lichtenstein S. and Slovic P. (1971). Reversals of Preferences Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89: 46–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindman H. R. (1971). Inconsistent Preferences Among Gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89: 390–97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lo, W., Cooper, D., Kagel, J. H., and Gu, Q. (1997): ``An Experimental Study of the Ratchet Effect: the Impact of Incentives, Context and Subject Sophistication on Behavior.'' Mimeo.Google Scholar
  33. Lopes L. L. (1987). Between Hope and Fear: the Psychology of Risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 20: 255–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lopes L. L. and Oden G. C. (1999). The Role of Aspiration Level in Risky Choice: a Comparison of Cumulative Prospect Theory and SP/A Theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 43: 286–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loke W. H. and Tan K. F. (1992). Effects on Framing and Mathematical Experience on Judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 27: 361–67 Google Scholar
  36. Marwell G. and Ames R. (1981). Economists Free Ride, Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods, IV. Journal of Public Economics 15: 295–310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mestelman S. and Feeny D. (1988). Does Ideology Matter? Anecdotal Experimental Evidence on the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods. Public Choice 57: 281–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy A. H. and Winkler R. L. (1977). Can Weather Forecasters Formulate Reliable Forecasts of Precipitation and Temperature?. National Weather Digest 2: 2–9 Google Scholar
  39. O'Clock P. and Devine K. (1995). An Investigation of Framing and Firm Size on the Auditor's Going Concern Decision. Accounting and Business Research 25: 197–207 Google Scholar
  40. Önkal D., Yates J. F., Simga-Mugan C. and Öztin S. (2003). Professional vs. Amateur Judgment Accuracy: the Case of Foreign Exchange Rates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91: 169–85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plott C. (1982). Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 20: 1485–527 Google Scholar
  42. Potters J. and van Winden F. (2000). Professionals and Students in a Lobbying Experiment Professional Rules of Conduct and Subject Surrogacy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 43: 499–522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quattrone G. A. and Tversky A. (1988). Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analysis of Political Choice. American Political Science Review 82(3): 719–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reyna V. F. and Brainerd C. J. (1991a). Fuzzy-trace Theory and Framing Effects in Choice: Gist Extraction, Truncation and Conversation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 4: 249–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reyna V. F. and Brainerd C. J. (1991b). Fuzzy-trace Theory and Children’s Acquisition of Mathematical and Scientific Concepts. Learning and Individual Differences 3: 27–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rohrbaugh C. C. and Shanteau J. (1999). Context, Process and Experience: Research on Applied Judgment and Decision Making. In: Durso, F. (eds) Handbook of Applied Cognition, pp. John Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  47. Roszkowski M. J. and Snelbecker G. E. (1990). Effects of ‘Framing’ on Measures of Risk: Financial Planners are not Immune. The Journal of Behavioral Economics 19: 237–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roth A. E., Prasnikar V., Okuno-Fujiwara M. and Zamir S. (1991). Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh and Tokio. American Economic Review 81(5): 1068–95 Google Scholar
  49. Samuelson W. and Zeckhauser R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Savage L. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  51. Schmidt U. (2004). Alternatives to Expected Utility: Some Formal Theories. In: Hammond, P. J., Barberá, S. and Seidl, C. (eds) Handbook of Utility Theory, vol. II, pp. Kluwer, Boston Google Scholar
  52. Schurr P. H. (1987). Effects of Gain and Loss Decision Frames on Risky Purchase Negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 351–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shanteau J. (1988). Psychological Characteristics and Strategies of Expert Decision Makers. Acta Psychologica 68: 203–15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shanteau J. (1992). Competence in Experts: the Role of Task Characteristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53: 252–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Siegel S. and Harnett D. L. (1964). Bargaining Behavior: a Comparison Between Mature Industrial Personell and College Students. Operations Research 12: 334–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Starmer C. (2000). Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: the Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. Journal of Economic Literature 38(2): 332–82 Google Scholar
  57. Traub S. (1999). Framing Effects in Taxation. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  58. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 185: 1124–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: a Reference-dependent Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 1039–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5(4): 297–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Von Neumann J. and Morgenstern O. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enrique Fatas
    • 1
  • Tibor Neugebauer
    • 2
  • Pilar Tamborero
    • 3
  1. 1.LINEEXUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementHannover Leibniz UniversityHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations