Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty
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.
KeywordsBlack swans Risk Ambiguity Fourfold pattern (Non)-expected utility Probabilistic choices Experience-based decision making Description-based decision making
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.
- 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
- de Palma, A., & Picard, N. (2010). Measuring individual-specific risk aversion, loss aversion and probability weighting. Unpublished manuscript, Paris Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
- Dimmock, S. G., Kouwenberg, R., Mitchell, O. S., & Peijnenburg, K. (2013). Ambiguity aversion and household portfolio choice: empirical evidence. Unpublished manuscript, NBER.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Fox, C. R., Long, A., Hadar, L., & Erner, C. (2013). Unpacking decisions from description and experience. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA Anderson School of Management.Google Scholar
- 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
- Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- 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