Theory and Decision

, Volume 79, Issue 4, pp 639–666 | Cite as

An experiment on case-based decision making

Article

Abstract

We experimentally investigate the disposition of decision makers to use case-based reasoning as suggested by Hume (An enquiry concerning human understanding, 1748) and formalized by case-based decision theory (Gilboa and Schmeidler in Q J Econ 110:605–639, 1995). Our subjects face a monopoly decision problem about which they have very limited information. Information is presented in a manner which makes similarity judgements according to the feature matching model of Tversky (Psychol Rev 84:327–352, 1977) plausible. We provide subjects a “history” of cases. In the \(2\times 2\) between-subject design, we vary whether information about the current market is given and whether immediate feedback about obtained profits is provided. The results provide support for the predictions of case-based decision theory, particularly when no immediate feedback is provided.

Keywords

Case-based decision making Case-based reasoning  Heuristics Limited information environments Similarity 

References

  1. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree—Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments: Experimenter’s manual. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gayer, G., Gilboa, I., & Lieberman, O. (2007). Rule-based and case-based reasoning in housing prices. The BE Journals in Theoretical Economics, 7(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  3. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-Based Decision Theory. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 605–639.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1997). Act similarity in case based decision theory. Economic Theory, 9, 47–61.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2001). A theory of case-based decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilboa, I., Liebermann, O., & Schmeidler, D. (2006). Empirical Similarity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (1985). Essentials of statistical analysis for the behavioral sciences. Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar
  9. Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. (2005). Similarity. In K. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 13–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Guerdjikova, A. (2002). Case-based decision theory—an application for the financial markets. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  11. Guerdjikova, A. (2003). On the definition and existence of an equilibrium in a financial market with case-based decision makers. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  12. Holyoak, K. J., & Gordon, P. C. (1983). Social reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. Retrieved from http://eserver.org/18th/hume-enquiry.html.
  14. Jahnke, H., Chwolka, A., & Simons, D. (2005). Coordinating service-sensitive demand and capacity by adaptive decision making: An application of case-based decision theory. Decision Sciences, 36, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsui, A. (2000). Expected utility and case based reasoning. Mathematical Social Sciences, 39, 1–12.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ortony, A., Vondruska, R., Foss, M., & Jones, L. (1985). Salience, similes, and the asymmetry of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 569–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ossadnik, W., Wilmsmann, D., & Niemann, B. (2013). Experimental evidence on case-based decision theory. Theory and Decision, 75(2), 211–232.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Podgorny, P., & Garner, W. R. (1979). Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Polya, G. (1954). Mathematics and plausible reasoning, vol. 1: induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Roth, A. E., & Erev, I. (1995). Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior, 8, 164–212.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubinstein, A. (1988). Similarity in decision making under risk (is there a utility resolution to the allais paradox ?). Journal of Economic Theory, 46, 145–153.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarin, R., & Vahid, F. (1999). Payoff assessments without probabilities: A simple dynamic model of choice. Games and Economic Behavior, 28, 294–309.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sarin, R., & Vahid, F. (2004). Strategy similarity and coordination. The Economic Journal, 114, 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Selten, R. (1998). Axiomatic characterization of the quadratic scoring rule. Experimental Economics, 1, 43–62.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J, Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  26. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. Psychological Review, 89, 123–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Trinity UniversitySan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations