The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Small feedback‐based decisions and their limited correspondence to description‐based decisions
Abstract
The present paper explores situations in which the information available to decision makers is limited to feedback concerning the outcomes of their previous decisions. The results reveal that experience in these situations can lead to deviations from maximization in the opposite direction of the deviations observed when the decisions are made based on a description of the choice problem. Experience was found to lead to a reversed common ratio/certainty effect, more risk seeking in the gain than in the loss domain, and to an underweighting of small probabilities. Only one of the examined properties of description‐based decisions, loss aversion, seems to emerge robustly in these ‘feedback‐based’ decisions. These results are summarized with a simple model that illustrates that all the unique properties of feedback‐based decisions can be a product of a tendency to rely on recent outcomes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods
Gneezy, U., & Potters, J. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555217 · Cited by 1,288
The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355397555226 · Cited by 1,051
Cited by
Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 · Cited by 2,242
Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x · Cited by 1,225
Self-citationThe description–experience gap in risky choice
Hertwig, R., & Erev, I. (2009) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004 · Cited by 911
Self-citationZhang, H., & Maloney, L. T. (2012) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2012.00001 · Cited by 679
Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence
March, J. G. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.515 · Cited by 663
Metadata
- Authors
- Barron, G., & Erev, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-05-21
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 215-233
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W2162180605
- Cited by
- 735
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Small feedback‐based decisions and their limited correspondence to description‐based decisions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bdm.443
- The paper
- Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small feedback‐based decisions and their limited correspondence to description‐based decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.443
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
