Advertisement

Why Unexpectedly Positive Experiences Make Decision Makers More Optimistic: An Explanation

  • Andrzej Pownuk
  • Vladik KreinovichEmail author
Chapter
  • 7 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 276)

Abstract

Experiments show that unexpectedly positive experiences make decision makers more optimistic. However, there seems to be no convincing explanation for this experimental fact. In this paper, we show that this experimental phenomenon can be naturally explained within the traditional utility-based decision theory.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants HRD-0734825 and HRD-1242122 (Cyber-ShARE Center of Excellence) and DUE-0926721, and by an award “UTEP and Prudential Actuarial Science Academy and Pipeline Initiative” from Prudential Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Fishburn, P.C.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hales, C.A., Stuart, S.A., Anderson, M.H., Robinson, E.S.J.: Modelling cognitive affective biases in major depressive disorder using rodents. Br. J. Pharmacol. 171(20), 4524–4538 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hurwicz, L.: Optimality criteria for decision making under ignorance. Cowles Commission Discussion Paper, Statistics, No. 370 (1951)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kreinovich, V.: Decision making under interval uncertainty (and beyond). In: Guo, P., Pedrycz, W. (eds.) Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences, pp. 163–193. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luce, R.D., Raiffa, R.: Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. Dover, New York (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nguyen, H.T., Kosheleva, O., Kreinovich, V.: Decision making beyond Arrow’s ‘impossibility theorem’, with the analysis of effects of collusion and mutual attraction. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 24(1), 27–47 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Panksepp, J., Wright, J.S., Döbrössy, M.D., Schlaepfer, ThE, Coenen, V.A.: Affective neuroscience strategies for understanding and treating depression: from preclinical models to three novel therapeutics. Clin. Psychol. Sci. 2(4), 472–494 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Papciak, J., Popik, P., Fuchs, E., Rygula, R.: Chronic psychosocial stress makes rats more ‘pessimistic’ in the ambiguous-cue interpretation paradigm. Behav. Brain Res. 256, 305–310 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1970)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rygula, R., Pluta, H., Popik, P.: Laughing rats are optimistic. PLoS ONE 7(2), e51959 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA

Personalised recommendations