Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty

Abstract

Uncertainty pervades most aspects of life. From selecting a new technology to choosing a career, decision makers rarely know in advance the exact outcomes of their decisions. Whereas the consequences of decisions in standard decision theory are explicitly described (the decision from description (DFD) paradigm), the consequences of decisions in the recent decision from experience (DFE) paradigm are learned from experience. In DFD, decision makers typically overrespond to rare events. That is, rare events have more impact on decisions than their objective probabilities warrant (overweighting). In DFE, decision makers typically exhibit the opposite pattern, underresponding to rare events. That is, rare events may have less impact on decisions than their objective probabilities warrant (underweighting). In extreme cases, rare events are completely neglected, a pattern known as the “Black Swan effect.” This contrast between DFD and DFE is known as a description–experience gap. In this paper, we discuss several tentative interpretations arising from our interdisciplinary examination of this gap. First, while a source of underweighting of rare events in DFE may be sampling error, we observe that a robust description–experience gap remains when these factors are not at play. Second, the residual description–experience gap is not only about experience per se but also about the way in which information concerning the probability distribution over the outcomes is learned in DFE. Econometric error theories may reveal that different assumed error structures in DFD and DFE also contribute to the gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. P. (2011a). The rich domain of uncertainty: source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101, 699–727.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abdellaoui, M., l’Haridon, O., & Paraschiv, C. (2011b). Experienced vs. described uncertainty: do we need two prospect theory specifications? Management Science, 57, 1879–1895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ben-Akiva, M., de Palma, A., McFadden, D., Abou-Zeid, M., Chiappori, P. A., de Lapparent, M., et al. (2012). Process and context in choice models. Marketing Letters, 23, 439–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Camerer, C., & Weber, M. (1992). Recent development in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 325–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. de Palma, A., & Picard, N. (2010). Measuring individual-specific risk aversion, loss aversion and probability weighting. Unpublished manuscript, Paris Ecole Polytechnique.

  8. de Palma, A., Picard, N., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2011). Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance. Theory and Decision, 70, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dimmock, S. G., Kouwenberg, R., Mitchell, O. S., & Peijnenburg, K. (2013). Ambiguity aversion and household portfolio choice: empirical evidence. Unpublished manuscript, NBER.

  10. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Erev, I., Glozman, I., & Hertwig, R. (2008). What impacts the impact of rare events. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36, 153–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Erev, I., Ert, E., & Roth, A. E. (2010a). A choice prediction competition for market entry games: an introduction. Games, 1, 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A. E., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S. M., Hau, R., et al. (2010b). A choice prediction competition: choices from experience and from description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 15–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: foundations and economic implications of probability-dependent risk preferences. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fehr-Duda, H., Bruhin, A., Epper, T., & Schubert, R. (2010). Rationality on the rise: why relative risk aversion increases with stake size. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40, 147–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fox, C. R., & Hadar, L. (2006). “Decisions from experience” = sampling error plus prospect theory: reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004). Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 159–161.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fox, C. R., & See, K. E. (2003). Belief and preference in decision under uncertainty. In D. Hardman & L. Macchi (Eds.), Thinking: current perspectives on reasoning, judgment, and decision making (pp. 273–314). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 585–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fox, C. R., & Tversky, A. (1998). A belief-based account of decision under uncertainty. Management Science, 44, 879–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fox, C. R., & Weber, M. (2002). Ambiguity aversion, comparative ignorance and decision context. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 476–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fox, C. R., Long, A., Hadar, L., & Erner, C. (2013). Unpacking decisions from description and experience. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA Anderson School of Management.

  22. Gonzalez, C., & Gutt, V. (2011). Instance-based learning: integrating sampling and repeated decisions form experience. Psychological Review, 118, 523–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hadar, L., & Fox, C. R. (2009). Information asymmetry in decisions from description versus decisions from experience. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 317–325.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hasher, L., & Zachs, L. T. (1984). Automatic processing of fundamental information: the case of frequency of occurrence. American Psychologist, 39, 1372–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Heath, C., & Tversky, A. (1991). Preference and belief: ambiguity and competence in choice under uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009). The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 517–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hills, T., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Information search and decisions from experience: do our patterns of sampling foreshadow our decisions? Psychological Science, 21, 1787–1792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12, 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997). Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: advances in support theory. Psychological Review, 104, 406–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Tversky, A., & Fox, C. R. (1995). Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102, 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994). Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tversky, A., & Wakker, P. P. (1995). Risk attitudes and decision weights. Econometrica, 63, 1255–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ungemach, C., Chater, N., & Stewart, N. (2009). Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted, when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)? Psychological Science, 20, 473–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Walker, J. L., & Ben-Akiva, M. (2011). Advances in discrete choice: mixtures models. In A. de Palma, R. Lindsey, E. Quinet, & R. Vickerman (Eds.), Handbook in transport economics (pp. 160–187). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wilcox, N. T. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (research in experimental economics 12) (pp. 197–292). Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Yechiam, E., Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2005). The role of personal experience in contributing to different patterns of response to rare terrorist attacks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 430–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank two anonymous referees and an associate editor for their useful comments and suggestions. We also thank Benedict Dellaert and Bas Donkers for organizing this successful 9th Invitational Choice Symposium.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André de Palma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Palma, A., Abdellaoui, M., Attanasi, G. et al. Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty. Mark Lett 25, 269–280 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9316-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Black swans
  • Risk
  • Ambiguity
  • Fourfold pattern
  • (Non)-expected utility
  • Probabilistic choices
  • Experience-based decision making
  • Description-based decision making