概率匹配中的相关性重要吗?实验室调查

IF 2.3 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.1016/j.jebo.2024.06.028
Jing Zhou
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

概率匹配是预期效用最大化的一种经典违规行为,指的是人们在选择二元彩票时,倾向于随机化,甚至将自己的选择频率与结果概率相匹配。为什么会这样?我提出了一个实验,旨在区分几大类解释:(1)相关不变随机选择模型--由于与彩票之间的相关性正交的因素(如非标准偏好或误差)而随机化,以及(2)相关敏感随机选择模型--由于错误地认为存在对冲机会而故意随机化,尤其是当彩票呈负相关时。我的实验设计通过改变彩票结果之间的相关性来区分它们的可检验预测。研究结果表明,尽管第一类是大多数现有理论的发源地,但其解释力有限。通过额外的处理,我排除了相似性启发法作为与第二类理论竞争的解释。结果表明,绝大多数人是由于错误地认为存在对冲机会而故意随机化的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
392
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.
期刊最新文献
Productivity losses in the transition to Daylight Saving Time: Evidence from hourly GitHub activity How risk aversion shapes the trade-off between commitment and flexibility Host country household spending and foreign subsidiary performance: The role of local knowledge, entry mode strategies, and the digital economy Economic impacts of a drastic gas supply shock and short-term mitigation strategies Resolving lawsuits with a decisive oath: An economic analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1