Measuring subjective decision confidence

Arts, Sara and Ong, Qiyan and Qiu, Jianying (2020): Measuring subjective decision confidence.

Abstract

Information on decision confidence provides important insights into decision-making. In place of self-reported confidence statements in earlier studies, this study examines an incentivized approach to elicit quantitative decision confidence experimentally and theoretically. This approach allows the individual to choose randomization probabilities according to which she receives each option instead of committing to one option as in standard binary choices. We demonstrate theoretically that randomization probabilities reveal the individual's decision confidence level. In an experiment that elicited both randomization probabilities and confidence statements about standard binary choices from subjects, we find that randomization probabilities varied systematically with decision confidence and are a viable measure of decision confidence. Our study contributes to the discussion of convex preference by relating preference for randomization to an intuitive psychological concept of decision confidence.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: decision confidence, randomization, incentivized approach
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C9 - Design of Experiments > C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

References

Agranov, M. and Ortoleva, P. (2017). Stochastic choice and preferences for randomization. Journal of Political Economy, 125(1):40–68.

Agranov, M. and Ortoleva, P. (2020). Ranges of preferences and randomization. Working paper, California Institute of Technology.

Bewley, T. F. (2002). Knightian decision theory: Part i. Decisions in Economics and Finance, 25:79–110.

Bradbury, M. A. S., Hens, T., and Zeisberger, S. (2014). Improving Investment Decisions with Simulated Experience. Review of Finance, 19(3):1019–1052.

Busemeyer, J. and Townsend, J. (1993). Decision feld theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psychological Review, 100(3):432–459.

Butler, D., Isoni, A., Loomes, G., and Tsutsui, K. (2014). Beyond choice: investigating the sensitivity and validity of measures of strength of preference. Experimental Economics, 17(4):537–563.

Butler, D. and Loomes, G. (2011). Imprecision as an account of violations of independence and betweenness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3):511–522.

Butler, D. J. and Loomes, G. C. (2007). Imprecision as an account of the preference reversal phenomenon. American Economic Review, 97(1):277–297.

Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Dillenberger, D., and Ortoleva, P. (2015). Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty E.ect. Econometrica, 83:693–728.

Cerreia-Vioglio, S., Dillenberger, D., Ortoleva, P., and Riella, G. (2019). Deliberately stochastic. American Economic Review, 109(7):2425–45.

Cohen, M., Ja.ray, J.-Y., and Said, T. (1987). Experimental comparison of individual be­havior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1):1 – 22.

Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W., and Loomes, G. (1994). Imprecise preferences and the wtp-wta disparity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(2):115–33.

Dubourg, W. R., Jones-Lee, M. W., and Loomes, G. (1997). Imprecise Preferences and Survey Design in Contingent Valuation. Economica, 64(256):681–702.

Dubra, J., Maccheroni, F., and Ok, E. A. (2004). Expected utility theory without the completeness axiom. Journal of Economic Theory, 115(1):118–133.

Eliaz, K. and Ok, E. A. (2006). Indi.erence or indecisiveness? Choice-theoretic foundations of incomplete preferences. Games and Economic Behavior, 56(1):61–86.

Enke, B. and Graeber, T. (2019). Cognitive uncertainty. Working paper, Harvard Univer­sity.

Gonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H., and Just, M. (2005). The framing e.ect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fmri. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(1):1 – 20.

Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with orsee. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1):114–125.

Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., and Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8):534–539. PMID: 15270998.

Huck, S. and Weizsäcker, G. (1999). Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(6):699 – 715.

Iyengar, S., Huberman, G., and Jiang, W. (2004). How much choice is too much: determinants of individual contributions in 401K retirement plans. in O.S. Mitchell and S. Utkus (Ed.), Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004), pp. 83-95.

Iyengar, S. S. and Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6):995–1006.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2):263–292.

Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., and Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6):1849–1892.

Levitt, S. D. (2020). Heads or Tails: The Impact of a Coin Toss on Major Life Decisions and Subsequent Happiness. The Review of Economic Studies.

List, J. A. (2003). Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1):41–71.

List, J. A. (2011). Does market experience eliminate market anomalies? the case of exogenous market experience. American Economic Review, 101(3):313–17.

Luce, M. F., Payne, J. W., and Bettman, J. R. (1999). Emotional trade-o. diÿculty and choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2):143–159.

Moffatt, P., Sitzia, S., and Zizzo, D. (2015). Heterogeneity in preferences towards com­plexity. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 51:147–170.

Ok, E. A., Ortoleva, P., and Riella, G. (2012). Incomplete Preferences Under Uncertainty: Indecisiveness in Beliefs versus Tastes. Econometrica, 80(4):1791–1808.

Pabst, S., Brand, M., and Wolf, O. (2013). Stress effects on framed decisions: there are differences for gains and losses. Front Behav Neurosci, 7(142).

Qiu, J. and Ong, Q. (2017). Indifference or indecisiveness: a strict discrimination. MPRA Paper 81790, University Library of Munich, Germany.

Quiggin, J. (1982). A theory of anticipated utility. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4):323–343.

Sonsino, D., Benzion, U., and Mador, G. (2002). The Complexity Effects on Choice with Uncertainty — Experimental Evidence. Economic Journal, 112(482):936–965.

Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Repre­sentation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4):297–323.

Vanberg, C. (2008). Why Do People Keep Their Promises? An Experimental Test of Two Explanations. Econometrica, 76(6):1467–1480.