An experimental analysis of satisficing in saving decisions

Satisficing and (un)bounded rationality—A formal definition and its experimental validity

“…Notation as in Fig. 2. only in the study of Güth et al (2009), a satisficing constellation of aspiration profile and choice vector was automatically confirmed.…”

“…Directly eliciting aspirations and rendering aspiration formation and adaptation payoff relevant (see Berninghaus et al, 2006;Güth et al, 2009) has been a natural alternative to the former experiences with "cheap-talk" aspirations. Incentivized aspiration elicitation has been implemented by (i) Güth et al (2009) for a stochastic (#Z = 4) choice task (n = 1) where only the relevant aspiration was earned if satisfied and nothing otherwise, (ii) Berninghaus et al (2006) for a homogenous duopoly (n = 2) market with stochastic demand (#Z = 3), and (iii) Güth et al (2008b) for a heterogeneous triopoly (n = 3) market (#Z = 1).…”

“…Incentivized aspiration elicitation has been implemented by (i) Güth et al (2009) for a stochastic (#Z = 4) choice task (n = 1) where only the relevant aspiration was earned if satisfied and nothing otherwise, (ii) Berninghaus et al (2006) for a homogenous duopoly (n = 2) market with stochastic demand (#Z = 3), and (iii) Güth et al (2008b) for a heterogeneous triopoly (n = 3) market (#Z = 1).…”

“…Güth et al (2009) compared "Cheap-talk" with incentivized aspiration formation for an intertemporal, stochastic (#Z = 4) choice task (n = 1) (one earns the payoff aspiration for the selected scenario if satisfied and nothing otherwise). The four scenarios represented short versus long "life" and low versus high future income and participants experienced nine successive "lives".…”

“…This is why Güth et al (2008b) have assumed a deterministic demand function depending on the own price and the average price of one's two competitors. Since participants could, and actually quickly learned to state up to six average price expectations, the risk of mispredicting the competitors could be greatly reduced (the study of Güth et al (2009) eliminated this risk by forcing participants to form an aspiration for each possible scenario). Here we only highlight the relative frequencies (in %) of what has been revised in the same round (Fig.…”