Making Choices in Repetitive Risky Situations with Immediate Feedback

• Autorzy: Elżbieta Babula , Urszula Mrzygłód
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study examines decision-making behavior under risk using a repeated choices experimental design with immediate feedback. The aim is to investigate the heuristics of choice under risk and their performance when feedback is provided immediately after each decision. The experimental results reveal that participants demonstrate a notable inclination to take risks, which is consistent with prior research indicating an increase in risk-taking with experience. Furthermore, the overall performance of the 11 tested heuristics in predicting participant decisions is found to be relatively low, with the 'least likely' heuristic emerging as the top performer and the 'minimax' heuristic exhibiting poor performance across all measures and decision problem types. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Heuristics; Risk; Decision making

PL

Heurystyka; Ryzyko; Podejmowanie decyzji

• Czasopismo: Economics & Sociology
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: 17
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 37--53

Twórcy

autor

Elżbieta Babula

• University of Gdańsk, Sopot, Poland

autor

Urszula Mrzygłód

• University of Gdańsk, Sopot, Poland

Bibliografia

• Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., L'Haridon, O., & Paraschiv, C. (2013). Is there one unifying concept of utility? An experimental comparison of utility under risk and utility over time. Management Science, 59(9), 2153-2169. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1690
• Abdellaoui, M., Diecidue, E., & Öncüler, A. (2011). Risk preferences at different time periods: An experimental investigation. Management Science, 57(5), 975-987. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1324
• Abdellaoui, M., L'Haridon, O., & Paraschiv, C. (2011). Experienced vs. described uncertainty: Do we need two prospect theory specifications? Management Science, 57(10), 1879-1895. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1368
• 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
• Blajer-Gołębiewska, A., Wach, D., & Kos, M. (2018). Financial risk information avoidance. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1), 521-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2018.1439396
• Booij, A. S., Van Praag, B. M. S., & Van De Kuilen, G. (2010). A parametric analysis of prospect theory's functionals for the general population. Theory and Decision, 68(1-2), 115-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-009-9144-4
• Bradbury, M. A. S., Hens, T., & Zeisberger, S. (2015). Improving investment decisions with simulated experience. Review of Finance, 19(3), 1019-1052. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfu021
• Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113(2), 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409
• Camerer, C. F. (1995). Individual decision making. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Camerer, C. F. (2000). Prospect Theory in the Wild: Evidence from the Field. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, Values and Frames (pp. 148-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Civelek, M., Krajčík, V., & Fialova, V. (2023). The impacts of innovative and competitive abilities of SMEs on their different financial risk concerns: System approach. Oeconomia Copernicana, 14(1), 327-354. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.009
• Erev, I., Roth, A. E., Slonim, R. L., & Barron, G. (2002). Combining a Theoretical Prediction with Experimental Evidence. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1-33. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1111712
• Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2013). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisioErt, E., & Erev, I.(2013). On the descriptive value of loss aversion in decisions under risk: Six clarifications. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 214-235. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1012022nsunde. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 214-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/e722852011-019
• Ert, E., & Haruvy, E. (2017). Revisiting risk aversion: Can risk preferences change with experience? Economics Letters, 151, 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2016.12.008
• Ferrari, R. (2020). Emergency Management: ABCD (Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability). In Injury and Health Risk Management in Sports (pp. 349-353). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60752-7_52
• Fox, C. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2014). Appendix - Prospect theory and the brain. (P. W. Glimcher & E. Fehr, Eds.), Neuroeconomics. Decision making in the brain (2nd ed.). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374176-9.00011-7
• Forlicz, M., & Rólczyński, T. (2022). Factors determining usage-based insurance acceptance - Poland and Spain results. Journal of International Studies, 15(3), 111-129. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2022/15-3/8
• Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Glöckner, A., & Pachur, T. (2012). Cognitive models of risky choice: Parameter stability and predictive accuracy of prospect theory. Cognition, 123(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.12.002
• Harrison, G. W., & Swarthout, J. T. (2016). Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration. Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk, Working Paper.
• 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(8), 534-539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x
• Ho, E. H., Hagmann, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2020). Measuring Information Preferences. Management Science, Articles i, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3769.003.0004
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values and Frames. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, Values and Frames (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaufmann, C., Weber, M., & Haisley, E. (2013). The role of experience sampling and graphical displays on one's investment risk appetite. Management Science, 59(2), 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1607
• Kuděj, M., Civelek, M., Erben, M., Masárová, J., & Kubálek, J. (2023). Navigating global markets: The role of enterprise risk management and human resource management in SME international expansions. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 18(4), 1075-1103. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2023.034
• Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1988). Timing of Feedback and Verbal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170349
• Li, W., Chen, S., Xiao, Z., Li, D., Lv, C., Zhang, S., ... He, Q. (2023). Risk aversion in risk-taking tasks: Combined effects of feedback attributes and cognitive reflection ability. Brain and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/BRB3.2957
• Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing Different Stochastic Specifications of Risky Choice. Economica, (65).
• Lopes, L. L., & Oden, G. C. (1999). The Role of Aspiration Level in Risky Choice: A Comparison of Cumulative Prospect Theory and SP/A Theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43(2), 286-313. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmps.1999.1259
• Macquet, A. (2009). Recognition within the decision-making process: A case study from expert volleyball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(1), 64-79. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200802575759
• Melesse, M. B., & Cecchi, F. (2017). Does Market Experience Attenuate Risk Aversion? Evidence from Landed Farm Households in Ethiopia. World Development, 98, 447-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.05.011
• Petrakova, Z., Frajtova Michalikova, K., Streimikis, J., & Fialova, V. (2023). Evaluation of personnel risk in the SMEs in the V4 countries. Journal of International Studies, 16(4), 191-204. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2023/16-4/13
• Schmidt, U., & Traub, S. (2002). An experimental test of loss aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(3), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020923921649
• Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVIII, 332-382.
• Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010). Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Behavioral Economics of Preferences, Choices, and Happiness, 100(1), 557-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_1
• Thim, T., Krarup, Grove, Rohde, & Lofgren. (2012). Initial assessment and treatment with the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach. International Journal of General Medicine, 117. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S28478
• Tobler, P. N., & Weber, E. U. (2014, January 1). Chapter 9 - Valuation for Risky and Uncertain Choices. Neuroeconomics. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416008-8.00009-7
• Turek, J., Ocicka, B., Rogowski, W., & Jefmański, B. (2023). The role of Industry 4.0 technologies in driving the financial importance of sustainability risk management. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 18(4),1009-1044. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2023.032
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
• Valls Martínez, M. del C., Soriano Román, R., & Mart´ín-Cervantes, P. A. (2022). Should risk-averse investors target the portfolios of socially responsible companies?. Oeconomia Copernicana, 13(2), 439-474. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2022.014
• von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (3rd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Wakker, P. P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Prospect Theory: For Risk and Ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14254/2071-789X.2024/17-2/2