Review of Related Literature Different decision-making: – Budget decisions of managers – Irrationality of continuing the risk of losing a prospect – Decision-making.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Psychological biases In Negotiation. Anchoring and adjustment In the face of uncertainty, people fix on the first piece of information and subconsciously.
Advertisements

The Behavioral Side of Pricing MKT 750 Dr. West. Agenda Issues associated with product pricing Defining terms Capturing value Behavioral pricing Discuss.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons
The imperfect brain: Rationality and the limits of knowledge Quentin Huys Wellcome Trust Neuroimaging Centre Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit Medical.
An Exploration of Decision Processes in an Evolutionary Perspective: the Case of the Framing Effect.
Day 2 Evolution of Decision-Making.  Tversky and Kahneman, 1974  Heuristics – general rules of thumb, or habits  Generally result in decent estimates.
Samantha Nicholas & Khrys Nugent Hanover College
1 Intuitive Irrationality: Reasons for Unreason. 2 Epistemology Branch of philosophy focused on how people acquire knowledge about the world Descriptive.
Thinking: Concept Formation Concept formation: identifying commonalities across stimuli that unite them into a common category Rule learning: identifying.
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
The Disordered Brain what happens when decision making goes wrong? Neil Harrison University of Sussex Formerly: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience & Wellcome.
Framing and Decision Making
Summary of Findings We replicated the findings of Tversky and Kahneman (1988) where participants were more risk-averse for positively framed decisions.
Network Security An Economics Perspective IS250 Spring 2010 John Chuang.
Survey.
CHAPTER 14 Utility Axioms Paradoxes & Implications.
Prospect Theory, Framing and Behavioral Traps Yuval Shahar M.D., Ph.D. Judgment and Decision Making in Information Systems.
Decision making and economics. Economic theories Economic theories provide normative standards Expected value Expected utility Specialized branches like.

Running Experiments with Amazon Mechanical-Turk Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, Jesse Chandler Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 5, No. 5, August 2010.
BEE3049 Behaviour, Decisions and Markets Miguel A. Fonseca.
Or Why We’re Not Really As Rational As We’d Like to Believe.
Lecture 4 PPE 110. In most situations when people make choices, the outcomes are random. For example, if you buy a stock, it may go up or down. If you.
The Psychology of Security ….a work in progress Bruce Schneier DIMACS Workshop on Information Security Economics Rutgers University 18 January 2007.
~ Psyc103 ~ Introduction to Psychological Science Dr. Jen Cole Wright MWF, 9:00-9:50am Education Center Room 118.
Choice. There’s never just one reinforcer Hmm…what to do?
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
MICROECONOMICS: Theory & Applications By Edgar K. Browning & Mark A. Zupan John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 11 th Edition, Copyright 2012 PowerPoint prepared by.
Copyright © 2000 by Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved. What is Perception? Perception: The process of recognizing and understanding others By understanding.
Language: Misleading and Evasive Tactics. Framing Effects: Definition  A framing effect occurs when different, but logically equivalent, words or phrases.
Consumer Judgment and Decision Making Professor Charles Hofacker Spring 2005.
Decision making Making decisions Optimal decisions Violations of rationality.
Surveys and Sampling. Midpoint/Don’t Know Midpoint- allows for neutral response Advantage- might be more accurate Advantage- might be more accurate Disadvantage-
Decision Making choice… maximizing utility framing effects
Framing Effects From Chapter 34 ‘Frame and Reality’ of Thinking Fast and Slow, by D. Kahneman.
4. The Theories and the Real World 4.3 What the theory does not reflect? (Back to your experiment)
A Heuristic Solution To The Allais Paradox And Its Implications Seán Muller, University of Cape Town.
Prospect Theory. 23A i 23B, reference point 23A) Your country is plagued with an outbreak of an exotic Asian disease, which may kill 600 people. You.
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, 1979.
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS Special Lectures University of Kuwait Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics Harvard University January 13th, 14th and.
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS Special Lectures University of Kuwait Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics Harvard University January 13th, 14th and.
Decision Making choice… maximizing utility framing effects.
Consumer Choice With Uncertainty Part II: Expected Utility & Jensen’s Inequality Agenda: 1.From Expected Value to Expected Utility: The VNM 2.Jensen’s.
Human Cognitive Processes: psyc 345 Ch. 13 Reasoning and Decision Making Takashi Yamauchi © Takashi Yamauchi (Dept. of Psychology, Texas A&M University)
Reframe the problem or the solution
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
Psychology 485 March 23,  Intro & Definitions Why learn about probabilities and risk?  What is learned? Expected Utility Prospect Theory Scalar.
PSY 323 – Cognition Chapter 13: Judgment, Decisions & Reasoning.
Chapter Seventeen Uncertainty. © 2009 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved Topics  Degree of Risk.  Decision Making Under Uncertainty.
Introduction to Prospect Theory Psychology 466: Judgment & Decision Making Instructor: John Miyamoto 11/17/2015: Lecture 08-2 Note: This Powerpoint presentation.
1 DECISION MAKING Suppose your patient (from the Brazilian rainforest) has tested positive for a rare but serious disease. Treatment exists but is risky.
Prospect Theory - complement J.Skorkovský ESF-KPH.
On Investor Behavior Objective Define and discuss the concept of rational behavior.
1 BAMS 517 – 2011 Decision Analysis -IV Utility Failures and Prospect Theory Martin L. Puterman UBC Sauder School of Business Winter Term
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
Behavioral Finance Biases Feb 23 Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Implicit Decision making Dr Magda Osman Room 2.25 Office hours Mondays.
Framing Effects and Focusing Illusion Psychology 355: Cognitive Psychology Instructor: John Miyamoto 6/2/2016: Lecture 10-4 Note: This Powerpoint presentation.
Preference Assessment 1 Measuring Utilities Directly
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences
Effects of Foreign Language on Decision Making
Implicit Decision making
PSY 323 – Cognition Chapter 13: Judgment, Decisions & Reasoning.
These slides are preview slides
Framing Effects and Affective Forecasting
DIS 280 Social Science Research Methodology: Problem Framing
Choices, Values and Frames
Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Behavioral Finance Economics 437.
Prospect Theory.
Presentation transcript:

Review of Related Literature Different decision-making: – Budget decisions of managers – Irrationality of continuing the risk of losing a prospect – Decision-making in changes in environment – Tax evasion decisions – Bankruptcy decisions – Purchasing quantity decisions – Sunk costs – Gambling

Review of Related Literature Shape of the utility function Inter-temporal choices Varying levels of probability and consequences Group decision-making Does not consider the effects of different types of people

Theoretical Framework Prospect Theory – Participants were asked to "imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows."

The first group of participants were presented with a choice between programs: In a group of 600 people, – Program A: "200 people will be saved" – Program B: "there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved" 72 percent of participants preferred program A (the remainder, 28 percent, opting for program B). The second group of participants were presented with the choice between: In a group of 600 people, – Program C: "400 people will die" – Program D: "there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-third probability that 600 people will die" 78 percent preferred program D, with the remaining 22 percent opting for program C.