The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The description–experience gap in risky choice: the role of sample size and experienced probabilities
Open accessAbstract
Risky prospects come in different forms. Sometimes options are presented with convenient descriptions summarizing outcomes and their respective likelihoods. People can thus make decisions from description. In other cases people must call on their encounters with such prospects, making decisions from experience. Recent studies report a systematic and large description–experience gap. One key determinant of this gap is people's tendency to rely on small samples resulting in substantial sampling error. Here we examine whether this gap exists even when people draw on large samples. Although smaller, the gap persists. We use the choices of the present and previous studies to test a large set of candidate strategies that model decisions from experience, including 12 heuristics, two associative‐learning models and the two‐stage model of cumulative prospect theory. This model analysis suggests—as one explanation for the remaining description–experience gap in large samples—that people treat probabilities differently in both types of decisions. Copyright © 2008 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
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497 · cited 1×
“…gap could be another manifestation of the important insight, that information representation shapes how people reason and how much risk they are willing to take (e.g., Gigerenzer & Hoffrage, 1995; Gottlieb et al., 2007; Hoffrage, Lindsey, Hertwig, & Gigerenzer, 2000; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).”
BackgroundAdvances 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
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173933 · Cited by 3,487
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.403 · Cited by 3,006
Cited by
The 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-citationReinforcement learning and episodic memory in humans and animals: an integrative framework
Gershman, S. J., & Daw, N. D. (2017) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033625 · Cited by 446
A choice prediction competition: Choices from experience and from description
Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A. E., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S. M., Hau, R., Hertwig, R., Stewart, T., West, R., & Lebiere, C. (2010) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.683 · Cited by 329
Self-citationInstance-based learning: Integrating sampling and repeated decisions from experience.
Gonzalez, C., & Dutt, V. (2011) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0024558 · Cited by 255
Metadata
- Authors
- Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., Kiefer, J., & Hertwig, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-05-08
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 493-518
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W2170183710
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 9.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.