A modified Monty Hall problem

Abstract

We conduct a laboratory experiment using the Monty Hall problem to study how simplified examples improve learning behavior and correct irrational choices in probabilistic situations. In particular, we show that after experiencing a simplified version of the MHP (the 100-door version), subjects perform better in the MHP (the 3-door version), compared to the control group who only experienced the 3-door version. Our results suggest that simplified examples strongly induces learning.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brokaw, A. J., & Merz, T. E. (2004). Active learning with monty hall in a game theory class. The Journal of Economic Education, 35(3), 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, W., Liu, S. Y., Chen, C. H., & Lee, Y. S. (2011). Bounded memory, inertia, sampling and weighting model for market entry games. Games, 2(1), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.3390/g2010187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dufwenberg, M., Sundaram, R., & Butler, D. J. (2010). Epiphany in the game of 21. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 75(2), 132–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Erev, I., & Roth, A.E. (2014). Maximization, learning, and economic behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 3), 10818–10825. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402846111. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/Supplement_3/10818.

  6. Franco-Watkins, A., Derks, P., & Dougherty, M. (2003). Reasoning in the monty hall problem: Examining choice behaviour and probability judgements. Thinking & Reasoning, 9(1), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Friedman, D. (1998). Monty hall’s three doors: Construction and deconstruction of a choice anomaly. American Economic Review, 88(4), 933–946.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., & Vostroknutov, A. (2010). Experience and insight in the race game. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 75(2), 144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Granberg, D., & Dorr, N. (1998). Further exploration of two-stage decision making in the monty hall dilemma. The American journal of psychology, 111(4), 561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282802762024700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mengel, F. (2012). Learning across games. Games and Economic Behavior, 74(2), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2011.08.020. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825611001552.

  12. Page, S. E. (1998). Let’s make a deal. Economics Letters, 61(2), 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Selvin, S., Bloxham, M., Khuri, A.I., Moore, M., Coleman, R., Bryce, G.R., Hagans, J.A., Chalmers, T.C., Maxwell, E.A., & Smith, G.N. (1975). Letters to the editor. The American Statistician, 29(1), 67–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2683689

  14. Stibel, J. M., Dror, I. E., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2009). The collapsing choice theory: Dissociating choice and judgment in decision making. Theory and Decision, 66(2), 149–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tubau, E., Aguilar-Lleyda, D., & Johnson, E. D. (2015). Reasoning and choice in the monty hall dilemma (mhd): implications for improving bayesian reasoning. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. vos Savant, M., (1997). The power of logical thinking. New York: St Martin's Griffin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This is an extension of Wei James Chen’s master thesis. Yu-Tsong Tai, Yahan Chuang, Ally Wu, Sara Yi-Ping Bai and Vivian Tzu-Fan Own provided excellent research assistance. We thank comments from Daniel Friedman, Chen-Ying Huang, Colin F. Camerer, Walter Yuan, Ching-I Huang, Sheng-Kai Chang, Martin Dufwenberg, Staphanie W. Wang, and the audience of the ESA 2009 International Meeting and North American Regional Meeting. This work was supported by CRETA, National Taiwan University (NTU-107L900203; MOST 107-3017-F-002-004). All remaining errors are our own.

Funding

This work was partially funded by the National Science Council of Taiwan (Grant number NSC 98-2410-H-002-069-MY2, NSC 102-2628-H-002-002-MY4).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei James Chen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, W.J., Wang, J.Ty. A modified Monty Hall problem. Theory Decis 89, 151–156 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-020-09757-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Bayesian updating
  • Problem of three prisoners
  • Laboratory experiments