Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 151–177 | Cite as

Behavioral patterns and reduction of sub-optimality: an experimental choice analysis

  • Daniela Di CagnoEmail author
  • Arianna Galliera
  • Werner Güth
  • Noemi Pace
Article
  • 136 Downloads

Abstract

This paper attempts to identify behavioral patterns and compare their average success considering several criteria of bounded rationality. Experimentally observed choice behavior in various decision tasks is used to assess heterogeneity in how individual participants respond to 15 randomly ordered portfolio choices, each of which is experienced twice. Treatments differ in (not) granting probability information and in (not) eliciting aspirations. Since in our setting neither other regarding concerns nor risk attitude matter and probability of the binary chance move is (optimal) choice irrelevant, categorizing decision types relies on parameter dependence and choice adaptations. We find that most participants reduce systematically sub-optimality when following the identified criteria.

Keywords

(Un)bounded rationality Satisficing Experiments Heterogeneity 

References

  1. Conlisk, J. (1996). Why bounded rationality? Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 669–700.Google Scholar
  2. Conte, A., Di Cagno, D. T., & Sciubba, E. (2015). Behavioral patterns in social networks. Economic Inquiry, 53(2), 1331–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Di Cagno, D. T., Galliera, A., Güth, W., Marzo, F., & Pace, N. (2017). (Sub) Optimality and (non) optimal satisficing in risky decision experiments. Theory and Decision, 83(2), 195–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erev, I., & Haruvy, E. (2013). Learning and the economics of small decisions. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gigerenzer, G. (2006). Bounded and rational. In R. J. Stainton (Ed.), Contemporary debates in cognitive science Oxford. UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Greiner, B. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. Published. In: Forschung und Wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht, 63, 79–93.Google Scholar
  8. Harrison, G.W., & Johnson, L.T. (2006). Identifying altruismin the laboratory. In RM. Isaac, & D.D. Davis (Eds.) Experiments investigating fundraising and charitable contributors (Research in Experimental Economics, Volume 11). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  9. Hey, J. D., Permana, Y., & Rochanahastin, N. (2017). When and how to satisfice: an experimental investigation. Theory and Decision, 83(3), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Manski, C. F. (2017). Optimize, satisfice, or choose without deliberation? A simple minimax-regret assessment. Theory and Decision, 82(2), 1–19.Google Scholar
  12. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roth, A. E., & Malouf, M. W. (1979). Game-theoretic models and the role of information in bargaining. Psychological Review, 86(6), 574–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sauermann, H. and Selten, R., (1962). Anspruchsanpassungstheorie der unternehmung. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, (H. 4), 577–597.Google Scholar
  15. Selten, R. (1998). Aspiration adaptation theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42(2–3), 191–214.Google Scholar
  16. Selten, R. (2001). What is bounded rationality. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Selten, R., Pittnauer, S., & Hohnisch, M. (2012). Dealing with dynamic decision problems when knowledge of the environment is limited: an approach based on goal systems. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Selten, R., Sadrieh, A., & Abbink, K. (1999). Money does not induce risk neutral behavior, but binary lotteries do even worse. Theory and Decision, 46(3), 213–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siegel, S. (1957). Level of aspiration and decision making. Psychological Review, 64(4), 253–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Di Cagno
    • 1
    Email author
  • Arianna Galliera
    • 1
    • 4
  • Werner Güth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Noemi Pace
    • 3
  1. 1.LuissRomeItaly
  2. 2.Max Planck InstituteBonnGermany
  3. 3.Ca’ Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly
  4. 4.Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations