## 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## Notes

### Acknowledgments

We thank Gerd Gigerenzer and the audiences at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, the Department of Economics at Texas A&M, the ESA meetings in Atlanta, Rome and Tucson and the Second Santa Barbara Workshop in Experimental Economics for helpful suggestions and discussions. Financial support from the Department of Economics and the Melbern G. Glasscock Center for Humanities Research at Texas A&M and the NSF is gratefully acknowledged.

## References

- Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree—Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments: Experimenter’s manual.
*Experimental Economics*,*10*(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality.
*Psychological Review*,*103*, 650–669.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar - Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-Based Decision Theory.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*,*110*, 605–639.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (1997). Act similarity in case based decision theory.
*Economic Theory*,*9*, 47–61.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2001).
*A theory of case-based decisions*. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gilboa, I., Liebermann, O., & Schmeidler, D. (2006). Empirical Similarity.
*The Review of Economics and Statistics*,*88*, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Glasnapp, D., & Poggio, J. (1985).
*Essentials of statistical analysis for the behavioral sciences*. Columbus: Merrill.Google Scholar - 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 - Guerdjikova, A. (2002).
*Case-based decision theory—an application for the financial markets*. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar - 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 - Holyoak, K. J., & Gordon, P. C. (1983). Social reference points.
*Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*,*44*, 881–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. Retrieved from http://eserver.org/18th/hume-enquiry.html.
- 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 - Matsui, A. (2000). Expected utility and case based reasoning.
*Mathematical Social Sciences*,*39*, 1–12.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Ossadnik, W., Wilmsmann, D., & Niemann, B. (2013). Experimental evidence on case-based decision theory.
*Theory and Decision*,*75*(2), 211–232.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 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 - Polya, G. (1954).
*Mathematics and plausible reasoning, vol. 1: induction and analogy in mathematics*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - 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 - 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 - Sarin, R., & Vahid, F. (1999). Payoff assessments without probabilities: A simple dynamic model of choice.
*Games and Economic Behavior*,*28*, 294–309.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sarin, R., & Vahid, F. (2004). Strategy similarity and coordination.
*The Economic Journal*,*114*, 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Selten, R. (1998). Axiomatic characterization of the quadratic scoring rule.
*Experimental Economics*,*1*, 43–62.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J, Jr. (1988).
*Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences*(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar - Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice.
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*,*69*, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.
*Psychological Review*,*84*, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Tversky, A., & Gati, I. (1982). Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality.
*Psychological Review*,*89*, 123–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar