Variability, Noise, and Error in Decision Making Under Risk

Bayesian Brains without Probabilities

“…Hence behavior will look noisy, even where on average the response will be correct (e.g., generating the wisdom of crowds even from a single individual [68][69][70]). The ubiquitous variability of human behavior, especially in highly abstract judgments or choice tasks [71][72][73][74] is puzzling for pure 'optimality' explanations. Bayesian samplers can match behavioral stochasticity in tasks such as perception, categorization, causal reasoning, and decision making [20,21,23,24].…”

The dual accumulator model of strategic deliberation and decision making.

“…Empirical research on both strategic and nonstrategic decision making has documented both heterogeneity across subjects and intrinsic variability in the responses of individual decision makers: Not only do different individuals make different choices, but a given individual may also respond differently to a given game on different occasions, even without intervening feedback (Fragiadakis, Knoepfle, & Niederle, 2016; Hyndman, Terracol, & Vaksmann, 2015; see also Loomes, 2015 for a review of the empirical evidence about individual stochastic choice in the domain of risk).…”

“…This approach implies that accidental selection of strictly dominated strategies is as likely other similarly costly errors. Empirically, however, strictly dominated strategies are selected quite rarely; for example, in various games examined by Costa-Gomes, Crawford, and Broseta (2001), decision makers choose dominated strategies less than 10% of the time (see also Stahl & Haruvy, 2008 for additional data and Loomes, 2015 for a related discussion). Weakly dominated strategies are chosen with some frequency in games with many strategies, such as second-price auctions (Kagel, Harstad, & Levin, 1987) and two-person p-beauty contest games (Camerer et al, 2004; Grosskopf & Nagel, 2008).…”

Quantum Contagion: A Quantum-Like Approach for the Analysis of Social Contagion Dynamics with Heterogeneous Adoption Thresholds

“…Although the whole process in social contagion studies is based on the assumption that individuals are perfectly rational and do follow the rules of classical probability theory and logic while taking an action during the process, it is well-known that only bounded rationality can exist [ 10 ] and individuals do not obey the classical probability rules [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. It is mainly due to agent interactions through information exchange that can influence individuals’ emotions, change subconscious feelings, and trigger subjective biases [ 10 , 15 ]. Furthermore, the impacts of such behavioral effects become more significant when individuals make their decision under uncertainty [ 13 ].…”