Decomposing Hindsight Bias

Traditional accounts of hindsight bias inadequately distinguish primary hindsight bias from both secondary and tertiary hindsight bias. A subject exhibits primary bias when she assigns a higher ex ante probability estimate to actual outcomes, secondary bias when she believes that she herself would have made the same estimate of the prior probability of an event before receiving outcome information as she made after receiving it, and tertiary bias when she believes that third parties lacking outcome information were unreasonable if they did not make the same prior probability judgments that subjects now possessing such information make.In our experiments, we find that when people can readily calculate the actual ex ante probability of an outcome, they don't reassess that probability when told what outcomes actually occurred. They reassess only in situations in which they are unable to assess prior probabilities or when given information that the outcome was not simply a result of sampling or chance but the result of an imperceptible feature of the initial situation. Observed primary bias may therefore often be rational.     

A strategic foundation for the cooperator's advantage

Orbell and Dawes develop a non-game theoretic heuristic that yields a cooperator's advantage by allowing players to project their own cooperate-defect choices onto potential partners (1991, p. 515). With appropriate parameter values their heuristic yields a cooperative environment, but the cooperation depends, simply, on optimism about others' behavior (1991, p. 526). In earlier work, Dawes (1989) established a statistical foundation for such optimism. In this paper, I adapt some of the concerns of Dawes (1989) and develop a game theoretic model based on a modification of the Harsanyi structure of games with incomplete information (1967–1968). I show that the commonly made conjecture that strategic play is incompatible with cooperation and the cooperator's advantage is false.     

Predictive superiority of the beta-characteristic function in cooperative non-sidepayment N-person games

This article reports an experimental study of decision-making outcomes in cooperative non-sidepayment games. The objective of this test was to determine which characteristic function, V (S) or V (S), provides the most accurate basis for payoff predictions from solution concepts. The experiment tested three solution concepts (core, stable set, imputation set) in the context of 5-person, 2-strategy non-sidepayment games. Predictions from each of the three solution concepts were computed on the basis of both V (S) and V (S), making a total of six predictive theories under test. Consistent with earlier studies (Michener et al., 1984a; Michener et al., 1985), two basic findings emerged. First, the data show that for each of the solutions tested, the prediction from any solution concept computed from V(S) was more accurate than the prediction from the same solution concept computed from V (S). Second, the -core was the most accurate of the six theories tested. Overall, these results support the view that V (S) is superior to V (S) as a basis for payoff predictions in cooperative non-sidepayment games.     

Endogenous risk and protection premiums

Endogenous risk implies an individual perceives he can influence the likelihood that a state of nature will occur. To add structure to endogenous risk models, I define a protection premium for reduced uncertainty about protection efficiency when a stochastic variable enters the probability functionp(x) rather than the utility function. For a binary lottery, a measure of aversion of uncertain protection efficiency(x) =-p(x)/p(x) is defined to unambiguously determine the effects of increased risk on an individual's voluntary contribution to public good supply earmarked to reduce the probability of an undesirable state. Finally, I examine the protection premium in ann-state discrete lottery and when uncertainty exists in both the probability and utility function.     

Fairness,Public Good,and Emotional Aspects of Punishment Behavior

We report an experiment on two treatments of an ultimatum minigame. In one treatment, responders reactions are hidden to proposers. We observe high rejection rates reflecting responders intrinsic resistance to unfairness. In the second treatment, proposers are informed, allowing for dynamic effects over eight rounds of play. The higher rejection rates can be attributed to responders provision of a public good: Punishment creates a group reputation for being tough and effectively educate proposers. Since rejection rates with informed proposers drop to the level of the treatment with non-informed proposers, the hypothesis of responders enjoyment of overt punishment is not supported.     

Public Perceptions of Risk and Preference-Based Values of Safety

This article reports the results of two studies aimed at estimating preference-based values of safety in three contexts—namely rail, domestic fires and fires in public places—relative to the corresponding value for roads using matching (or equivalence) questions. In addition, both studies included a variety of questions intended to shed light on respondents' perceptions of risk and attitudes to safety in the various contexts. While the two studies were, to all intents and purposes, identical in the procedure that they employed, the essential difference between them was that the first study took place in late 1998, whereas the second study was carried out in early 2000 in the aftermath of a major rail accident at Ladbroke Grove near London's Paddington station which occurred in October 1999 and in which 29 passengers and 2 train drivers died. In addition, the second study sample was deliberately weighted to contain an above-average proportion of regular rail users. These studies demonstrated how certain factors which have been shown to affect people's perception of risk (see Slovic, P. (1992). In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 117–152) also affected our respondents' priorities over safety programs. The results also showed however, that the impact of these perceptions upon the trade-offs between preventing deaths in different hazard contexts was a good deal less pronounced than has been suggested by the value differentials that are currently implicit—and in some cases, explicit—in public policy making.     

Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion

This paper is motivated by the search for one cardinal utility for decisions under risk, welfare evaluations, and other contexts. This cardinal utility should have meaningprior to risk, with risk depending on cardinal utility, not the other way around. The rank-dependent utility model can reconcile such a view on utility with the position that risk attitude consists of more than marginal utility, by providing a separate risk component: a probabilistic risk attitude towards probability mixtures of lotteries, modeled through a transformation for cumulative probabilities. While this separation of risk attitude into two independent components is the characteristic feature of rank-dependent utility, it had not yet been axiomatized. Doing that is the purpose of this paper. Therefore, in the second part, the paper extends Yaari's axiomatization to nonlinear utility, and provides separate axiomatizations for increasing/decreasing marginal utility and for optimistic/pessimistic probability transformations. This is generalized to interpersonal comparability. It is also shown that two elementary and often-discussed properties — quasi-convexity (aversion) of preferences with respect to probability mixtures, and convexity (pessimism) of the probability transformation — are equivalent.     

Different experimental procedures for obtaining valuations of risky actions: Implications for utility theory

Three different methods of obtaining certainty equivalent valuations of four simple gambles were used with a sample of 358 people paid entirely according to their decisions. The results caution against oversimplistic utility models, and exhibit various characteristics that invite further investigation, including: a marked tendency to round valuations up or down; a tendency to value riskier actions more highly than less risky actions; and multimodal distributions of valuations which, despite their unusual shape, appeared to constitute an identifiable pattern of behaviour.     

On the foundations of mean-variance analyses

Let (, ) and (, ) be mean-standard deviation pairs of two probability distributions on the real line. Mean-variance analyses presume that the preferred distribution depends solely on these pairs, with primary preference given to larger mean and smaller variance. This presumption, in conjunction with the assumption that one distribution is better than a second distribution if the mass of the first is completely to the right of the mass of the second, implies that (, ) is preferred to (, ) if and only if either > or ( = and < ), provided that the set of distributions is sufficiently rich. The latter provision fails if the outcomes of all distributions lie in a finite interval, but then it is still possible to arrive at more liberal dominance conclusions between (, ) and (, ).This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research.     

Rational choice and economic behavior

This paper discusses several concepts that can be used to provide a foundation for a unified, theory of rational, economic behavior. First, decision-making is defined to be a process that takes place with reference to both subjective and objective time, that distinguishes between plans and actions, between information and states and that explicitly incorporates the collection and processing of information. This conception of decision making is then related to several important aspects of behavioral economics, the dependence of values on experience, the use of behavioral rules, the occurrence of multiple goals and environmental feedback.Our conclusions are (1) the non-transitivity of observed or revealed preferences is a characteristic of learning and hence is to be expected of rational decision-makers; (2) the learning of values through experience suggests the sensibleness of short time horizons and the making of choices according to flexible utility; (3) certain rules of thumb used to allow for risk are closely related to principles of Safety-First and can also be based directly on the hypothesis that the feeling of risk (the probability of disaster) is identified with extreme departures from recently executed decisions. (4) The maximization of a hierarchy of goals, or of a lexicographical utility function, is closely related to the search for feasibility and the practice of satisficing. (5) When the dim perception of environmental feedback and the effect of learning on values are acknowledged the intertemporal optimality of planned decision trajectories is seen to be a characteristic of subjective not objective time. This explains why decision making is so often best characterized by rolling plans. In short, we find that economic man - like any other - is an existential being whose plans are based on hopes and fears and whose every act involves a leap of faith.This paper is based on a talk presented at the Conference, New Beginnings in Economics, Akron, Ohio, March 15, 1969. Work on this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.     

Awareness and partitional information structures

This is the first of two papers where we present a formal model of unawareness. We contrast unawareness with certainty and uncertainty. A subject is certain of something when he knows that thing; he is uncertain when he does not know it, but he knows he does not: he is consciously uncertain. On the other hand, he isunaware of something when he does not know it, and he does not know he does not know, and so on ad infinitum: he does not perceive, does not have in mind, the object of knowledge. The opposite of unawareness is awareness, which includes certainty and uncertainty.This paper has three main purposes. First, we formalize the concept of awareness, and introduce a symmetry axiom which states that a subject can be aware of something, say, if and only if he is aware of its negation not-; in other words, that and not- are perceived together, or neither is. We then derive the basic properties of awareness.The second purpose is to prove a different axiomatic characterization, based on the concept of awareness of the system which underlies the model of information with partitional structures (known asS5).The third purpose of this paper is to show that without a substantial weakening of the rules of inferences normally assumed in modal logic a satisfactory model of unawareness, which includes the symmetry axiom, is impossible. This alternative approach is developed in a second paper by the same authors.     

Objective knowledge out of ignorance: Popper on body,mind, and the third world

In the fifties, Popper defended an interactionistic version of body-mind dualism. It distinguished between the world of physical bodies and states and the world of mental states. Later he added a third world of objective thought contents. He claims the assumption that there is the third world is a necessary presupposition of problem-solving in general and of his philosophy of science in particular. The present article contains separate reasonings to the effect that this presupposition is neither necessary nor even possible. It is further argued that postulating the existence of entities makes sense only relative to a criterion of ontological commitment, which Popper does not mention and obviously does not have, and that in addition it presupposes a theory, which is tentatively accepted as true and which according to the criterion implies the existence of the entities. But as yet there is no testable theory involving terms like mind, intention etc., which made the notion that itself or its terms are essentially different from what is already known in the empirical sciences at least plausible. Therefore the body-mind controversy is still pointless. Popper's stand on it seems to be but a reflex of his anti-behavioristic and anti-psychologistic attitude.     

The Affection Effect in Insurance Decisions

We use insurance behavior as a context to study affective influences in seemingly purely monetary decisions. We report two related findings. First, people are more willing to purchase insurance for an object at stake, the more affection they have for the object, holding the amount of compensation constant. Second, if the object is damaged, people are also more willing to go through the trouble of claiming a fixed amount of compensation, the more affection they have for the object. These effects are not predicted by standard decision theories. We explain these findings by a consolation hypothesis, according to which, people perceive insurance compensation as a token of consolation, and we discuss its implications for affective influences in other types of decisions.     

Substitution of indifferent options at choice nodes and admissibility: a reply to Rabinowicz

Tiebreak rules are necessary for revealing indifference in non- sequential decisions. I focus on a preference relation that satisfies Ordering and fails Independence in the following way. Lotteries a and b are indifferent but the compound lottery 0.5f, 0.5b is strictly preferred to the compound lottery 0.5f, 0.5a. Using tiebreak rules the following is shown here: In sequential decisions when backward induction is applied, a preference like the one just described must alter the preference relation between a and b at certain choice nodes, i.e., indifference between a and b is not stable. Using this result, I answer a question posed by Rabinowicz (1997) concerning admissibility in sequential decisions when indifferent options are substituted at choice nodes.     

Far-sighted equilibria in 2 × 2, non-cooperative,repeated games

Consider a two-person simultaneous-move game in strategic form. Suppose this game is played over and over at discrete points in time. Suppose, furthermore, that communication is not possible, but nevertheless we observe some regularity in the sequence of outcomes. The aim of this paper is to provide an explanation for the question why such regularity might persist for many (i.e., infinite) periods.Each player, when contemplating a deviation, considers a sequential-move game, roughly speaking of the following form: if I change my strategy this period, then in the next my opponent will take his strategy b and afterwards I can switch to my strategy a, but then I am worse off since at that outcome my opponent has no incentive to change anymore, whatever I do. Theoretically, however, there is no end to such reaction chains. In case that deviating by some player gives him less utility in the long run than before deviation, we say that the original regular sequence of outcomes is far-sighted stable for that player. It is a far-sighted equilibrium if it is far-sighted stable for both players.     

The impact of risk attitude,uncertainty and disequilibria on optimal production and inventory

Summary The empirical facts seem to indicate that in real economies the effect of uncertainty tends to decrease production. The limitations of empirical investigations presented should be stressed: they were performed mainly on an aggregate level, they mainly refer to Austrian manufacturing, they rely heavily on questionnaires. Above all empirical investigation will never be able to decide normative questions or to explain the behavior in the general equilibrium. Nevertheless in the short run, given all the rigidities and disequilibria which exist, uncertainty tends to lower optimal production even in absence of risk aversion. Risk aversion becomes important for large, for once-for-all decisions, but it is not the only channel through which uncertainty changes decisions.Technological concavity created by concave marginal revenues or by convex marginal costs, marginal costs of uncertainty in disequilibria model or asymmetric costs of revisions of the preliminary decision are able to bias the decision downward in a real world economy without invokingPaper presented to the 2nd Conference on the Foundations of Risk and Utility (FUR), Venezia, 1984.     

Comment on Pommerehne et al., “concordia discors: Or: What do economists think?”

Conclusion Why do Pommerehne and associates apparently overlook the point that both their hypothesis and data contain elements which are not compatible? Their findings in fact might be interpreted as contradictory to a human capital explanation for the behavior of their sample of economists. Kuhn (1970) would propose that mainstream economics has provided a set of assumptions to place over these findings that allows a neo-classical interpretation. However, the human capital theory does not address the contradictions in the data they gathered. As Berger and Luchman (1966, pp. 62–63) would conclude, institutionalization may take place in any area of relevant conduct to provide a corresponding canopy of legitimations, stretching over a protective cover of both cognitive and normative interpretation. Once again, the institutionalization of mainstream science has been successful in suppressing alternative assumptions that could explain the data more adequately and with greater consistency.We conclude that the paper by Pommerehne and associates contains shortcomings of theorizing and method. Likewise we conclude that a theoretical formulation which takes into account the normative and therefore the cultural factors of science will provide an explanation of the opinion and behavior of economists more in keeping with their empirical findings than one based on self-interest alone.     

The primary-goods indexation problem in Rawls's theory of justice

Rawls's Difference Principle holds that basic social institutions are just if they maximize the worst-off individual's potential welfare, which depends on the vector of amounts of primary goods. As Rawls recognized, the multiplicity of primary goods poses an index number problem. This paper uses the machinery of social choice to characterize the class of procedures for aggregating quantities of several primary goods into a composite ordinal index that are consistent with Rawls's analysis. Only very simple and unattractive aggregation methods in which the various primary goods play roles of radically different magnitudes are compatible with Rawls's argument.     

Expected utility, μ-σ preferences,and linear distribution classes: A further result

This article is an extension of Meyer and Sinn's results on the representation of arbitrary von Neumann-Morgenstern functions in - space when the probability distributions to be compared belong to a linear distribution class. It shows that, when absolute risk aversion decreases, stays constant, or increases not too fast, an increase in , given , increases the indifference curve slope: increased riskiness increases the required marginal compensation for risk when risk is measured by the standard deviation of wealth or income.I gratefully acknowledge useful comments by Wolfgang Buchholz, Kai Konrad, Jack Meyer, Hans Schneeweiß, Dominique Thon, and Bengt Arne Wickström.     

Impersonal probability as an ideal assessment based on accessible evidence: A viable construct?

When risk analysts and others refer to the true probability of an event, it is not easy to give it a meaning which is sound and useful as a communication device for regulatory, research planning, and related purposes. An interpretation is herein offered which, unlike Bayesian probability, is impersonal and does not depend on a particular assessor; unlike Carnap's logical probability, it does not depend on information actually to hand. It is a generalization of frequency and propensity interpretations of impersonal probability applicable to unique events: an ideal assessment based on currently accessible (not in general perfect) evidence. The argument is illustrated from decision-aiding experience which motivated the enquiry.This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, Division of Social and Economic Sciences. The author thanks John Pratt, Marvin Cohen, Dennis Lindley, Jon Baron, Kathy Laskey, and Stephen Watson for their most helpful review. They do not necessarily share his views.