Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T04:23:57.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Colour-coded decisions: an experiment on case-based decision theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Benjamin RadocOpen the ORCID record for Benjamin Radoc[Opens in a new window]
Benjamin Radoc*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, PhilippinesBSP Research Academy, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Manila, Philippines
*
bradoc@ateneo.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Decision makers typically possess limited knowledge on states of the world so that use of information from past similar experiences is reasonable. This analogical thinking is formalised by case-based decision theory (CBDT). We created a novel experimental setting to validate the predictive power of CBDT versus Bayesian reasoning. Participants encountered a salient but irrelevant cue which a Bayesian decision maker is likely to ignore but a case-based decision maker may use in assessing similarity. We find that although the irrelevant similarity cue was used, the pattern in participants’ decisions is neither case-based nor Bayesian. The results suggest that CBDT does not apply in simple decision settings where similarity cues are uninformative.

Keywords

Bayesian reasoningCase-based decisionGambler's fallacySimilarity

JEL classification

D9: Micro-Based Behavioral Economics‡C91: Laboratory, Individual BehaviorD81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 10 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Behavioral and Experimental Economics for Innovative Policy-Making (Articles 1 to 3) , December 2024, pp. 519 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2024.

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

References

Ayton, P, Fischer, I. (2004). The hot hand fallacy and the gambler's fallacy: Two facets of subjective randomness. Memory & Cognition, 32, 8, 1369–1378. 10.3758/BF03206327.Google Scholar
Becker, G, DeGroot, M, Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9, 3, 226–232. 10.1002/bs.3830090304.Google ScholarPubMed
Bleichrodt, H, Filko, M, Kothiyal, A, Wakker, P. (2017). Making case-based decision theory directly observable. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 9, 1, 123–151.Google Scholar
Croson, R, Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 2, 448–474. 10.1257/jel.47.2.448.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2001). A Theory of Case-Based Decisions, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I., & Schmeidler, D. (2010). Case-Based Prediction, World Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Gilboa, I, Schmeidler, D. (1995). Case-based decision theory. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 3, 605–639. 10.2307/2946694.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, C, Dutt, V. (2011). Instance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience. Psychological Review, 118, 4, 523–551. 10.1037/a0024558.Google ScholarPubMed
Gregan-Paxton, J, Cote, J. (2000). How do investors make predictions? Insights from analogical reasoning research. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 307–327. 10.1002/1099-0771(200007/09)13:3<307::AID-BDM354>3.0.CO;2-3.Google Scholar
Grosskopf, B, Sarin, R, Watson, E. (2015). An experiment on case-based decision making. Theory and Decision, 79, 4, 639–666. 10.1007/s11238-015-9492-1.Google Scholar
Hertwig, R, Barron, G, Weber, E, Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 8, 534–539. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x.Google ScholarPubMed
Isoni, A, Loomes, G, Sugden, R. (2011). The willingness to pay/willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations: Comment. The American Economic Review, 101, 991–1011. 10.1257/aer.101.2.991.Google Scholar
Keller, LR, Segal, U, Wang, T. (1993). The Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism and generalized utility theories: Theoretical predictions and empirical observations. Theory and Decision, 34, 83–97. 10.1007/BF01074895.Google Scholar
Matsui, A. (2000). Expected utility and case-based reasoning. Mathematical Social Sciences, 39, 1–12. 10.1016/S0165-4896(99)00008-6.Google Scholar
Ossadnik, W, Wilmsmann, D, Niemann, B. (2013). Experimental evidence on case-based decision theory. Theory and Decision, 75, 211–232. 10.1007/s11238-012-9333-4.Google Scholar
Plott, C, Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay/willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. The American Economic Review, 95, 3, 530–545. 10.1257/0002828054201387.Google Scholar
Radoc, B, Sugden, R, Turocy, TL. (2019). Correlation neglect and case-based decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 59, 23–49. 10.1007/s11166-019-09309-1.Google Scholar
Rogers, P. (1998). The cognitive psychology of lottery gambling: A theoretical review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14, 2, 111–133. 10.1023/A:1023042708217.Google ScholarPubMed
Seidl, C. (2002). Preference reversal. Journal of Economic Surveys, 16, 5, 621–655. 10.1111/1467-6419.00184.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (2003). Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. Journal of Economic Theory, 111, 172–191. 10.1016/S0022-0531(03)00082-6.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (2004).(, Handbook of Utility Theory Volume 2: Extensions, Kluwer Academic, chapter Alternatives to Expected Utility: Foundations and Concepts.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 4, 327–352. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327.Google Scholar
Wulff, DU, Mergenthaler-Canseco, M, Hertwig, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description-experience gap. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 140–176. 10.1037/bul0000115.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhao, J, King, CL. (2001). A new explanation for the WTP/WTA disparity. Economics Letters, 73, 293–300. 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00511-0.Google Scholar
Zizzo, DJ. (2003). Transfer of knowledge in economic decision-making: An overview. Greek Economic Review, 22, 2, 1–10.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Radoc supplementary material

Radoc supplementary material
Download Radoc supplementary material(File)
File 320.2 KB