The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are People Bayesian? Uncovering Behavioral Strategies
Abstract
Economists and psychologists have recently been developing new theories of decision making under uncertainty that can accommodate the observed violations of standard statistical decision theoretic axioms by experimental subjects. We propose a procedure that finds a collection of decision rules that best explain the behavior of experimental subjects. The procedure is a combination of maximum likelihood estimation of the rules together with an implicit classification of subjects to the various rules and a penalty for having too many rules. We apply our procedure to data on probabilistic updating by subjects in four different universities. We get remarkably robust results showing that the most important rules used by the subjects (in order of importance) are Bayes's rule, a representativeness rule (ignoring the prior), and, to a lesser extent, conservatism (overweighting the prior).
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
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · cited 1×
“For example, Wallace and Boulton (1968)'s Snob (and later Snob 2) program, and Cheeseman (1988)'s Autoclass II program assume normality of the data generating process.”
Background“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence
Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.4.506 · Cited by 1,506
Cited by
Eliciting Risk and Time Preferences
Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2008) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2008.00848.x · Cited by 984
Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0408759102 · Cited by 435
Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining
Johnson, E. J., Camerer, C., Sen, S., & Rymon, T. (2002) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1006/jeth.2001.2850 · Cited by 411
Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Young, S. M. (2000) · Journal of Management Accounting Research · doi:10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.19 · Cited by 401
Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion
(2010) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7139 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- El-Gamal, M. A., & Grether, D. M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 90
- Issue
- 432
- Pages
- 1137-1145
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W1998054917
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.57
- 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: Are People Bayesian? Uncovering Behavioral Strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476620
- The paper
- El-Gamal, M. A., & Grether, D. M. (1995). Are People Bayesian? Uncovering Behavioral Strategies. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476620
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.
