Not just noise: A goal pursuit interpretation of stochastic choice.

Wallin, Ann; Swait́, Joffre; Marley, A. A. J.

doi:10.1037/dec0000077

“…We are not the first to apply the CRS assumption as an identification strategy. See, e.g., Swait & Marley (2013), Wallin et al (2018), Wang et al (2020) and Ge & Godager (2021a). A third identification strategy is to specify so-called willingness-to-pay space models as in the studies by Train & Weeks (2005), Scarpa et al (2008) and Hole & Kolstad (2012).…”

Section: Estimation and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does gender affect medical decisions?

Godager,

Hennig-Schmidt,

Li

et al. 2023

Nordic J Health Eco

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is rarely the case in medical practice that differences between female and male physicians can be described under ceteris paribus conditions. Physicians self-select their type of practice, patients self-select physicians, and physicians are expected to account for both the context and the characteristics of their patients when providing medical treatment. As a result, reported gender differences in medical practice can have several alternative interpretations. A key question, therefore, is whetherthe treatment of a given patient is expected to depend on the gender of the physician. To address this question, we quantify gender effects using data from an incentivized laboratory experiment, in which Chinese medical doctors and Chinese medical students choose medical treatment under different payment schemes. We estimate preference parameters of females and males assuming decision makers have patient-regarding preferences. We cannot reject the hypothesis that gender differencesin treatment choices are absent. The differences between preference parameters of females and males are not statistically significant, and there is no evidence that the degree of randomness in choices differs between genders. The absence of gender effects in the laboratory, where choice context is fixed, provides nuance to previous findings on gender differences, and highlights the general difficulty of separating individuals’ behavior from their context.

show abstract

“…In fact, these new developments fit best the empirical evidence. This clearly reveals that decision-making does not derive from a single entity, but from a complex system of entities (Brocas and Carrillo, 2014;Cervantes and Dzhafarov, 2018;Lee, Gluck, and Walsh, 2019;Wallin, Swait, and Marley, 2018). This has given relevance to the initial experiments carried out by Schneider and Shiffrin (1977a) and Schneider and Shiffrin (1977b), who proposed what has been called in Psychology dual decision models and proposed the dual decision theory (Brocas and Carrillo, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Rational Irrationality: A Two Stage Decision Making Model

2021

ADS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a mathematical two-stage decision making model based on dual-decision models from behavioral economics that includes, in addition to cognitive and affective systems, an individualistic human factor and a stochastic shock. The model provides a new vision of the decision-making process and the impact of individualism. In the first stage, the agent´s initial willingness to choose is obtained following traditional economic theory but including an individual human factor, which is composed by the learning process, free will, and other human factors. This allows us to explain the reason why sometimes people are inclined to choose options that seem to be irrational decisions from the view of traditional economics logic. In the second stage, the model explains how the cognitive and affective systems and the influence of a stochastic shock affect the initial willingness to choose, obtained in the first stage. The shock might be produced by those negative and/or positive feelings and information not known or considered previously that allows the individual arrive to the final decision. Finally, our model demonstrates that the individual human factor and the stochastic shock are fundamental elements that define the rational irrationality when traditional economic theory fails to explain individuals´choices.

show abstract

“…In fact, these new developments fit best the empirical evidence. This clearly reveals that decision-making does not derive from a single entity, but from a complex system of entities (Brocas and Carrillo, 2014;Cervantes and Dzhafarov, 2018;Lee, Gluck, and Walsh, 2019;Wallin, Swait, and Marley, 2018). This has given relevance to the initial experiments carried out by Schneider and Shiffrin (1977a) and Schneider and Shiffrin (1977b), who proposed what has been called in Psychology dual decision models and proposed the dual decision theory (Brocas and Carrillo, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Rational Irrationality: A Two Stage Decision Making Model

Acevedo

¹

,

Aponte

²

,

Harmath

³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes a mathematical two-stage decision making model based on dual-decision models from behavioral economics that includes, in addition to cognitive and affective systems, an individualistic human factor and a stochastic shock. The model provides a new vision of the decision-making process and the impact of individualism. In the first stage, the agent´s initial willingness to choose is obtained following traditional economic theory but including an individual human factor, which is composed by the learning process, free will, and other human factors. This allows us to explain the reason why sometimes people are inclined to choose options that seem to be irrational decisions from the view of traditional economics logic. In the second stage, the model explains how the cognitive and affective systems and the influence of a stochastic shock affect the initial willingness to choose, obtained in the first stage. The shock might be produced by those negative and/or positive feelings and information not known or considered previously that allows the individual arrive to the final decision. Finally, our model demonstrates that the individual human factor and the stochastic shock are fundamental elements that define the rational irrationality when traditional economic theory fails to explain individuals´choices.

show abstract

Not just noise: A goal pursuit interpretation of stochastic choice.

Cited by 6 publications

References 51 publications

Does gender affect medical decisions?

Does gender affect medical decisions?

Rational Irrationality: A Two Stage Decision Making Model

Rational Irrationality: A Two Stage Decision Making Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About