{"title":"概率匹配中的相关性重要吗?实验室调查","authors":"Jing Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.jebo.2024.06.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Probability Matching, a classical violation of expected utility maximization, refers to people's tendency to randomize, or even match their choice frequency to the outcome probability, when choosing over binary lotteries that differ only in their probabilities. Why? I present an experiment designed to distinguish between several broad classes of explanations: (1) models of <em>Correlation-Invariant Stochastic Choice</em> — randomizing due to factors orthogonal to the correlation between lotteries, such as non-standard preferences or errors, and (2) models of <em>Correlation-Sensitive Stochastic Choice</em> — deliberately randomizing due to misperceived hedging opportunities, especially when lotteries are negatively correlated. My experimental design differentiates between their testable predictions by varying the correlation between lottery outcomes. The findings indicate that the first class, despite being home to most existing theories, has limited explanatory power. Using additional treatment, I rule out <em>Similarity Heuristics</em> as a competing explanation with the second class. The results indicate that a vast majority of individuals deliberately randomize due to misperceived hedging opportunities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does correlation matter in probability matching? A laboratory investigation\",\"authors\":\"Jing Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jebo.2024.06.028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Probability Matching, a classical violation of expected utility maximization, refers to people's tendency to randomize, or even match their choice frequency to the outcome probability, when choosing over binary lotteries that differ only in their probabilities. Why? I present an experiment designed to distinguish between several broad classes of explanations: (1) models of <em>Correlation-Invariant Stochastic Choice</em> — randomizing due to factors orthogonal to the correlation between lotteries, such as non-standard preferences or errors, and (2) models of <em>Correlation-Sensitive Stochastic Choice</em> — deliberately randomizing due to misperceived hedging opportunities, especially when lotteries are negatively correlated. My experimental design differentiates between their testable predictions by varying the correlation between lottery outcomes. The findings indicate that the first class, despite being home to most existing theories, has limited explanatory power. Using additional treatment, I rule out <em>Similarity Heuristics</em> as a competing explanation with the second class. The results indicate that a vast majority of individuals deliberately randomize due to misperceived hedging opportunities.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268124002464\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268124002464","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Does correlation matter in probability matching? A laboratory investigation
Probability Matching, a classical violation of expected utility maximization, refers to people's tendency to randomize, or even match their choice frequency to the outcome probability, when choosing over binary lotteries that differ only in their probabilities. Why? I present an experiment designed to distinguish between several broad classes of explanations: (1) models of Correlation-Invariant Stochastic Choice — randomizing due to factors orthogonal to the correlation between lotteries, such as non-standard preferences or errors, and (2) models of Correlation-Sensitive Stochastic Choice — deliberately randomizing due to misperceived hedging opportunities, especially when lotteries are negatively correlated. My experimental design differentiates between their testable predictions by varying the correlation between lottery outcomes. The findings indicate that the first class, despite being home to most existing theories, has limited explanatory power. Using additional treatment, I rule out Similarity Heuristics as a competing explanation with the second class. The results indicate that a vast majority of individuals deliberately randomize due to misperceived hedging opportunities.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization is devoted to theoretical and empirical research concerning economic decision, organization and behavior and to economic change in all its aspects. Its specific purposes are to foster an improved understanding of how human cognitive, computational and informational characteristics influence the working of economic organizations and market economies and how an economy structural features lead to various types of micro and macro behavior, to changing patterns of development and to institutional evolution. Research with these purposes that explore the interrelations of economics with other disciplines such as biology, psychology, law, anthropology, sociology and mathematics is particularly welcome.