Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T23:51:36.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complexity and biases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Kenan Kalaycı  and
Marta Serra-Garcia
Kenan Kalaycı*
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of Queensland, Colin Clark Building (39), St. Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Marta Serra-Garcia*
Affiliation:
Rady School of Management, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
*
k.kalayci@uq.edu.au
mserragarcia@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine experimentally how complexity affects decision-making, when individuals choose among different products with varying benefits and costs. We find that complexity in costs leads to choosing a high-benefit product, with high costs and overall lower payoffs. In contrast, when complexity is in the benefits of the product, we cannot reject the hypothesis of random mistakes. We also examine the role of heterogeneous complexity. We find that individuals still (mistakenly) choose the high-benefit but costly product, even if cheaper and simple products are available. Our results suggest that salience is a main driver of choices under different forms of complexity.

Keywords

ComplexityMistakesCredit ChoiceExperimentSalience

JEL classification

D14: Household Saving • Personal Finance C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 31 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9434-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Abeler, J., & Jäger, S. (2013). Complex tax incentives—An experimental investigation. American Economic Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Ausubel, L. (1999). Adverse selection in the credit card market. Working Paper. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Bertrand, M, & Morse, A (2011). Information disclosure, cognitive biases and payday borrowing. Journal of Finance, 66(6), 1865–1893. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01698.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beshears, J, Choi, JJ, Laibson, D, Madrian, BC, & Wise, DA (2010). How does simplified disclosure affect individuals mutual fund choices?. Explorations in the Economics of Aging, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blavastkyy, P, & Pogrebna, G (2010). Stochastic choice and decision theories. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 25, 963–986. 10.1002/jae.1116Google Scholar
Bordalo, P, Gennaioli, N, & Shleifer, A (2013). Salience and consumer choice. Journal of Political Economy, 121(5), 803–843. 10.1086/673885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J, Hossain, T, & Morgan, J (2010). Shrouded attributes and information suppression: Evidence from the field. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(2), 859–876. 10.1162/qjec.2010.125.2.859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, JY (2006). Household finance. Journal of Finance, 61(4), 1553–1604. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.00883.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplin, A, Dean, M, & Martin, D (2011). Search and satisficing. American Economic Review, 101(7), 2899–2922. 10.1257/aer.101.7.2899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, B (2009). Strategic pice complexity in financial retail markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 91, 278–287. 10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, R, Looney, A, & Kroft, K (2009). Salience and taxation: Theory and evidence. The American Economic Review, 99(4), 1145–1177. 10.1257/aer.99.4.1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, JJ, Laibson, D, & Madrian, BC (2010). Why does the law of one price fail? An experiment on index mutual funds. Review of Financial Studies, 32(4), 1405–1432. 10.1093/rfs/hhp097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, A (2009). E-ztax: Tax salience and tax rates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(3), 969–1010. 10.1162/qjec.2009.124.3.969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabaix, X, & Laibson, D (2006). Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 505–539. 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G, & List, J (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1013–1059. 10.1257/0022051043004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huck, S, & Weizsäcker, G (1999). Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 699–715. 10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00031-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalaycı, K, & Potters, J (2011). Buyer confusion and market prices. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29(1), 14–22. 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2010.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalaycı, K (2015). Price complexity and buyer confusion in markets. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 111, 154–168. 10.1016/j.jebo.2015.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köszegi, B, & Szeidl, A (2013). A model of focusing in economic choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 53–104. 10.1093/qje/qjs049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, D (1959). Individual choice behaviour, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lusardi, A., & Tufano, P. (2009). Debt literacy, financial experiences, and overindebtedness. NBER Working Paper 14808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D, & Zarembka, P (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in econometrics (Chapter 4), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McKelvey, RD, & Palfrey, TR (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6–38. 10.1006/game.1995.1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2005). Improving Financial Literacy: Analysis of Issues and Policies, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Ortoleva, P (2013). The price of flexibility: Towards a theory of Thinking Aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 148, 903–934. 10.1016/j.jet.2012.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D, Loewenstein, G, & Rabin, M (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1–3), 171–197. 10.1023/A:1007879411489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, HA (1957). Models of man: Social and rational, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Spiegler, R (2011). Bounded rationality and industrial organization, Oxford: Oxford University Press 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195398717.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stizia, S, & Zizzo, D (2011). Does product complexity matter for competition in experimental retail markets?. Theory and Decision, 70, 65–82. 10.1007/s11238-009-9163-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stizia, S., Zheng, J., & Zizzo, D. (2011). Complexity and smart nudges for inattentive consumers. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Wilcox, N (1993). Lottery choice: Incentives complexity and decision time. Economic Journal, 103(421), 1397–1417. 10.2307/2234473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kalaycı and Serra-Garcia supplementary material

Online Appendix for “Complexity and Biases: An Experimental Study”
Download Kalaycı and Serra-Garcia supplementary material(File)
File 223.1 KB