TY - JOUR
T1 - "Decisions from experience" = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004).
AU - Fox, Craig R.
AU - Hadar, Liat
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - According to prospect theory, people overweight low probability events and underweight high probability events. Several recent papers (notably, Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev, 2004) have argued that although this pattern holds for "description-based" decisions, in which people are explicitly provided with probability distributions over potential outcomes, it is actually reversed in "experience-based" decisions, in which people must learn these distributions through sampling. We reanalyze the data of Hertwig et al. (2004) and present a replication to determine the extent to which their phenomenon can be attributed to sampling error (a statistical rather than psychological phenomenon) versus underestimation of rare events (i.e., judgmental bias) versus actual underweighting of judged probabilities. We find that the apparent reversal of prospect theory in decisions from experience can be attributed almost entirely to sampling error, and are consistent with prospect theory and the two-stage model of decision under uncertainty (Fox & Tversky, 1998). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
AB - According to prospect theory, people overweight low probability events and underweight high probability events. Several recent papers (notably, Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev, 2004) have argued that although this pattern holds for "description-based" decisions, in which people are explicitly provided with probability distributions over potential outcomes, it is actually reversed in "experience-based" decisions, in which people must learn these distributions through sampling. We reanalyze the data of Hertwig et al. (2004) and present a replication to determine the extent to which their phenomenon can be attributed to sampling error (a statistical rather than psychological phenomenon) versus underestimation of rare events (i.e., judgmental bias) versus actual underweighting of judged probabilities. We find that the apparent reversal of prospect theory in decisions from experience can be attributed almost entirely to sampling error, and are consistent with prospect theory and the two-stage model of decision under uncertainty (Fox & Tversky, 1998). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
KW - Decision Making
KW - Errors
KW - Estimation
KW - Probability Judgment
KW - Prospect Theory
KW - Theories
KW - Uncertainty
UR - https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-04382-008
UR - https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.107.1834&rep=rep1&type=pdf
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
SN - 1930-2975
VL - 1
SP - 159
EP - 161
JO - Judgment and Decision Making
JF - Judgment and Decision Making
IS - 2
ER -