Economic Psychology: Kapitel 2 Flashcards
Entscheidungssituationen =
Optionen mit Konsequenzen und Möglichkeiten –> Infos sind mehr oder weniger zugänglich
Klassisches ökonomisches Modell menschlichen Verhaltens = 4
- rationales und nutzenmaximierendes Verhalten
- Kenntnis aller Informationen
- Zeit und Motivation zur Verarbeitung dieser
- ist normativ
3 Gründe für systematische Anomalien im Verhalten
- begrenzte Verarbeitungskapazität
- mangelhafte Infos
- Motivation
Heuristiken =
Entscheidungsregeln, die Ziert und Energie sparen, aber auch zu suboptimalen Urteilen verleiten
Wodurch können Entscheidungen erschwert werden? 4
- Vielzahl von möglichen Optionen
- Komplexität
- zeitliche Begrenzungen
- Konsequenzen unsicher oder unbekannt
Auf welche 2 Arten können Entscheidungen getroffen werden?
- intuitiv
- analytisch
Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit = 4
- Konsequenzen der Alternativen sind nur unter WSK gegeben
- in manchen Fällen können die WSKen für bestimmte Alternativen festgelegt werden
- Risikoentscheidungen
- Ungewisse Entscheidungen
Ambiguöse Entscheidungen =
Konsequenzen treten mit unbekannten Wahrscheinlichkeiten ein
Was bedeutet Risiko im Kontext von Entscheidungen?
WSK
Entscheidungen unter Sicherheit =
OHNE WSK –> Konsequenzen sind mit Sicherheit bekannt
Risikoentscheidungen = 2
- Konsequenzen folgen bestimmten WSKen
- bei schwierigen Sachverhalten können die WSKen möglicherweise nicht festgelegt werden
Entscheidungen unter Ungewissheit =
Konsequenzen sind unbekannt
Ellsberg Paradox =
inkonsistentes Entscheidungsverhalten (entgegen der Nutzenmaximierungstheorie) der TPs um ambiguöse Situationen zu vermeiden
Ambiguitätseffekt = 3
- Verhaltensalternativen unsicher –> Entscheidungen werden durch Menge an Infos über Verteilungswsken beeinflusst
- Situationen werden bevorzugt, wo klares Bild von WSK des Auftretens verschiedener Konsequenzen besteht
- steht Nutzungstheorie und ihrem Unabhängigkeitsaxiom entgegen
Unabhängigkeitsaxiom =
Präferenzordnung ist Kontextunabhängig
St. Petersburg Paradox =
- Spieler wollen laut ErwartungxWert Theorie den Gewinn maximieren und sollen bereit sein ihr gesamtes Vermögen im Spiel zu investieren –> tatsächlich sind die meisten Menschen nur bereit höchstens einen kleinen Teil zu investieren
Erwartete Nutzentheorie = 2
- Entscheidungen basieren nicht auf erwartetem Wert sondern auf erwartetem Nutzen
- Nutzenfunktion: monetärer Wert korreliert mit Nutzen konkav, NICHtT linear
Subjektive erwartete Nutzentheorie = 2
- basiert auf ErwartungxWert Theorie und der erwarteten Nutzentheorie
- ist ein normatives Entscheidungsmodell –> strebt optimale Entscheidung an
Was besagt die subjektive erwartetet Nutzentheorie? 4
- Subjektiv erwarteter Nutzen wird für alle Optionen abgewogen, gewählt wird die nutzenträchtigste Option
- Entscheidungsträger kennen die Konsequenzen der möglichen Optionen und deren Auftretenswsk
- Entscheidungsträger können risikosuchend, neutral oder -abweisen eingestellt sein –> Konsequenzen können interindividuell unterschiedlich bewertet werden
- Konsequenzen und WSKen können objektiv oder subjektiv determiniert sein
3 Klassische Entscheidungstheorien
- St. Petersburg Paradox
- Erwartete Nutzentheorie
- Subjektiv erwartete Nutzentheorie
Gemeinsamkeiten der klassischen Entscheidungstheorien 7
- Handlungsträger handelt im Sinne des Homo Oeconomicus
- es gibt identifizierbaren Entscheidungsträger
- alle Alternativen liegen offen
- alle möglichen Konsequenzen werden vorausgeahnt, evaluiert und in Reihenfolge gebracht
- Konsequenzen werden im Zusammenhang mit Langzeitzielen evaluiert
- alle WSKen können zugeteilt werden
- Urteile werden aufgrund von relevanten Infos getätigt, diese können gesucht und geordnet werden
Deskriptive Entscheidungsmodelle =
beschreiben, wie Menschen tatsächlich Entscheidungen treffen (im Gegensatz zu normativen, idealisierten Modellen)
Präskriptive Entscheidungsmodelle =
nutzen Entscheidungstheorien, um Schritt-für-Schritt Vorgehensweisen zu suggerieren wie man die optimale Lösung findet
Was wird beim Ultimatum Spiel untersucht? 3
- Gewinnmaximierung
- wie stark Interessen der Mitspieler in Entscheidungsfindung einbezogen werden
- Fairness und Gerechtigkeit
Diktator Spiel =
so wie Ultimatum Spiel nur dass B den Betrag nicht ablehnen kann –> dennoch wird meist ein gewisser Anteil angeboten, jedoch kleiner als beim Ultimatum Spiel
Wie kann mit Hilfe vom Ultimatum Spiel Marktverhalten in Gruppen erforscht werden?
Mehrere Spielrunden –> Vertrauen und Kooperationen haben Einfluß auf Entscheiudngsverhalten
Gefangenendilemma 3
- individuelle Sicht: es wäre besser mit Polizei zu kooperieren
- In Studien zeigt sich jedoch, dass Gefangenen oft mit Komplizen kooperieren
- bei Wiederholden des Spiels und wenn Zahl der Wiederholungen bekannt kann es zu Rückwärtsinduktion kommen
Rückwärtsinduktion = 3
- letzte Runde des Gefangenendilemmas gestaltet sich wie einmaliges Spiel
- optimale Lösung wäre Kooperation mit Polizei
- die für die letzte Runde in Erwägung gezogene rationale Lösung wird auch jeweils für die Vorrunden hergeleitet
When do Problems become complex? 2
When they involve…
- non-linear developments
- probabilities
Mounty Hall dilemma
- only very few candidates switch over from their first choice beliving that Chance of Winning is now 50% because there are only 2 closed envelopes
- false assumptions About probabilities and the compulsion to be steadfast in one’s first decision and behaviour convince most candidates not to switch
- however holding on to the first envelope reduces the chances of Winning –> switching over would actually double the chances of winning
Gilovich and Medvec
showed that people experience more regret and disappointment when they take Action, compared to situations where they wait Things out
2 different modes of thinking by W. James
- Associative (=System 1)
- Reasoning (=System 2)
System 1 =
leads to biases and Errors in decision-making
System 2=
facilitates normatively correct decisions
How can information-processing over System 2 lead to mistakes?
insights from System 1 are not always correspondingly evaluated and corrected by System 2, as this second system sometimes simply seeks justification for intuitive insights
Decisions are commonly judged based on… 2
- what might have happened
- how a decision-maker would have felt if they had selected a different option
What are decisions under uncertainty based on?
anticipated feelings of rejoicing and regret
Affective forecasting (Wilson and Gilbert) =
Research on the prognosis of future Feelings –> focuses on teh prediction of emotionals reactins to future Events
Prediciton errors 2
- Imapct bias
- Projection bias
Impact bias =
Duration and intensity of one’s emotional reaction are often overestimated
Projection bias = 4
- Tendency to assume that one’s future Feelings and preferences will be similar to the current ones
- people who are in a good mood at the time they predict future feelings make different prognoses than people in bad moods
- People tend to ignore other Events that could happen in the meantime
- people tend to rationalise their experiences, understand their fate, find meaning and adapt themselves to whatever the current situation is
Delayed Gratification =
People are generally inclined to enjoy amenities immediately rather than to wait patiently for larger comforts in the future
Marshmallow Experiment (W. Mischel)
- self-comtrö as means f supressiong consumption impukses si especially difficult when System 1 is dominante –> often activated in stressful situations
Are future or current Costs given lower value?
Future costs
Time discounting =
- preference to immediate Utility, compared to delayed Utility
- The discount rate of Profits (and losses) over time is frequently high –> however people behave inconsistently in this regard
When do people not follow the maximisation principle?
In repeated choice situations
Fundamental law of effect (Thorndike)2
- Postulates an increase in the probability of occurrence of behaviour that receives the most reinforcement
- when repeated opportunities are available to choose among behavioural alternatives, behaviour that provides a person with most pleasurable consequences (the greatest utility) would have, after a while, to occur frequently
Hernstein 3
- contradicts fundamental law of effect
- found in multiple animal Experiments, that deviations from the maximisation principle occurred in simple choice situation with 2 alternatives to choose from (each of which was reinforced to a different Degree)
- sometimes, due to satisfaction effects, out of curiosity or other motives the alternative with less value was preferred to the more valuable one
Law of relative effect / Matching law (Hernstein) 2
- selection ratio of various behavioural alternatives is proportional to the subjective value of the reinforcements attached to this alternative
- and it is inversely proportional to the time that passes between the behaviour and its reinforcement
Melioration Principle = 3
- “short-run betterment”
- humans compare the effects elicited by different behaviours
- choose the behavioural alternative that puts them in a better position for the time being more frequently
Better-than-average effect =
People have a tendency to believ they are better than otehrs.
Peak and end rule (Kahnemann)3
- if an event exhibited a few negative peaks and ended unpleasantly, it is usually remembered as a negative experience
- if the end was perceived to be enjoyable relative to the rest of the time, the event is remembered as a pleasant experience
- Experiment: Hand in cold water
Hindsight bias (Fischhoff) 2
- “knew-it-all-along-bias”
- when looking back on an event whose subsequent course of development is known, people often don’t remember their original predictions exactly–> instead they correct them based on an informational feedback
Types of Heuristics 5
- Availability H
- Representativeness H
- Anchoring and Adjustment H
- Affect H
- Fast and Fugal H
Subtypes of Fast and Fugal Heuristics 3
- Recognition bias
- Take-the-best heuristic
- Elimination heuristic
Availability Heuristic = 2
- the more easily a topic can be retrieved from memory, the more frequently it must have been presented or experienced
- however, in some cases a one-time event might be experienced in such a lasting manner that details are remembered quickly and accurately = flashbulb-events
Availability Heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann’s Experiment
names of famous people were remembered more easily and thus were more quickly available that the names of non-famous people –> percentage of men/women in the groups was overestimated
Availability Heuristic: Lichtenstein
“The conspicuousness of events leads to judgement errors.”
Availability Heuristic: Mood-as-infomration heuristic 3
= judgements are based on current mood
- people in certain moods pay more attention to some types of content than others, store it better and are also able to retrieve it more easily when in the same mood
- they tend to interpret experience in a manner congruent with their current mood
Representativeness Heuristic = 2
- Judgements are based on the similarity between an outcome and a mode
- in their judgement of samples, people ignore essential attributes of the population
Representativeness Heuristic: Tversky and Kahnemann’s Experiment
study participants ignored the distribution of lawyers and engineers in the population and only based their judgements on the stereotypes
Representativeness Heuristic: Gamblers Fallacy
= in roulette: the belief that the probability of the ball landing on red increases after a long sequence of black
Representativeness Heuristic: Hot and fallacy
= belief that players can be “hot” at a given time, increasing the probability that they will make subsequent shots
Representativeness Heuristic: Conjunction fallacy
= people are not often mindful of the fact that combined events are less likely than a single event
Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic = 5
- People begin their frequency and probability estimations with an initial value drawn from the formulation of the problem or prescribed by another person
- the starting value serves as an anchor, which is then (inadequately) adjusted during the course of the estimation of judgements
- non-plausible anchors also have effects, although the anchoring effect is stronger when the anchors seem plausible and correspond to the topic
- works for experts as well
- plays a fundamental role in negotiations –> person who makes the first offer states the anchor for all subsequent negotiations and often attains the better result
Affect Heuristic = 4
- judgements are based on cues from positive and negative affects
- the subjective judgement of risks and benefits are often negatively correlated
- induces consistent perceptions –> if something induces positive affect, it must have low risks and high benefits
- experts are less likely to make judgements based on this heuristic
Affect Heuristic: Rottenstreich und Hasee’s experiment
participants willingness to protect themselves from the monetary penalty, compared to the electric shock, which is more emotional, was thoroughly dependent on the probability of punishment
Fast and Frugal Heuristics = 4
- heuristics are part of “adaptive-toolbox” and allow a complex problem to be solved in a short period of time
- they are fast, and because only a few pieces of info are needed they are frugal
- break the classical norms of rationality
- if applied in the right environment they CAN facilitate more correct decisions and predictions than extensive reflection
Recognition bias =
when people are familiar with only one of two objects, they often conclude that the known object is more important than the other one
Take-the-best heuristic =
the one characteristc, that seems especially relevan is selected and the options are compared based on this characteristic alone
Elimination heuristic =
desicsions are beased on sequential elimination of alternatives
