The Collapsing Choice Theory: Dissociating Choice and Judgment in Decision Making

Stibel, Jeffrey M.; Dror, Itiel E.; Ben-Zeev, Talia

doi:10.1007/s11238-007-9094-7

Cited by 15 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of participants still judged their posterior winning probability as 1/2. In sum, our results provide further support for the earlier demonstrated dissociation between behavioural performance on the MHD and the level of actual problem understanding (Franco-Watkins et al, 2003;Stibel et al, 2009;Tubau & Alonso, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…More specifically, a choice to switch is not necessarily the consequence of correct probabilistic reasoning. This proposition is confirmed in previous research: Franco-Watkins et al (2003), Stibel, Dror, and Ben-Zeev (2009), and Tubau and Alonso (2003) demonstrated that there is a clear dissociation between the choice behaviour on the MHD and the actual understanding of the problem's underlying probabilities. Thus, although research demonstrates ways to influence the use of the optimal strategy to solve the MHD, people still fail to grasp the reason why switching is beneficial.…”

supporting

confidence: 81%

“…First, the results showed that participants' switch rates increased most when they received conditional feedback in frequency format, which was in line with our hypotheses. Second, the findings in this paper provided additional evidence for the dissociation between behavioural performances on the MHD and actual understanding of the problem (Franco-Watkins et al, 2003;Stibel et al, 2009;Tubau & Alonso, 2003). Although cumulative, constantly updated, and available feedback, especially in conditional frequency format, helped the participants to detect that switching was the optimal response on the MHD, the feedback did not help the participants to improve their actual understanding of why this is the case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

Saenen

Dooren

Onghena

2014

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a notorious probability problem with a counterintuitive solution. There is a strong tendency to stay with the initial choice, despite the fact that switching doubles the probability of winning. The current randomised experiment investigates whether feedback in a series of trials improves behavioural performance on the MHD and increases the level of understanding of the problem. Feedback was either conditional or non-conditional, and was given either in frequency format or in percentage format. Results show that people learn to switch most when receiving conditional feedback in frequency format. However, problem understanding does not improve as a consequence of receiving feedback. Our study confirms the dissociation between behavioural performance on the MHD, on one hand, and actual understanding of the MHD, on the other. We discuss how this dissociation can be understood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

supporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

Saenen

Dooren

Onghena

2014

Thinking & Reasoning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fourth, the numbers of options are mentioned, demonstrating that most studies included three alternatives analogous to the classic MHD. A limited number of studies increased the number of options significantly, up to 100 (Stibel et al, 2009) and 128 (Burns & Wieth, 2004) alternatives. Finally, the number of MHD trials are mentioned, showing that most studies investigated just one MHD trial, whereas other studies let participants solve repeated MHD trials.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also when people solve repeated trials of the MHD, sticking percentages remain relatively high (e.g., Granberg & Dorr, 1998). Besides this suboptimal behaviour, most people have the strong idea that their choice, either staying or switching, does not matter, because they consider the probability to win the prize for both options as being equal (Franco-Watkins, Derks, & Dougherty, 2003; Granberg & Brown, 1995; Stibel, Dror, & Ben-Zeev, 2009). Note that both people’s equiprobability reasoning and sticking behaviour are not in line with the optimal solution to the MHD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

Saenen¹,

Heyvaert²,

Dooren³

et al. 2018

Psychologica Belgica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Monty Hall dilemma (MHD) is a difficult brain teaser. We present a systematic review of literature published between January 2000 and February 2018 addressing why humans systematically fail to react optimally to the MHD or fail to understand it.Based on a sequential analysis of the phases in the MHD, we first review causes in each of these phases that may prohibit humans to react optimally and to fully understand the problem. Next, we address the question whether humans’ performance, in terms of choice behaviour and (probability) understanding, can be improved. Finally, we discuss individual differences related to people’s suboptimal performance.This review provides novel insights by means of its holistic approach of the MHD: At each phase, there are reasons to expect that people respond suboptimally. Given that the occurrence of only one cause is sufficient, it is not surprising that suboptimal responses are so widespread and people rarely understand the MHD.

show abstract

Choice, Rating, and Ranking: Framing Effects with Different Response Modes

Kühberger

Gradl

2011

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a typical risky choice framing task, people have to choose among two options, which are either positively or negatively framed. Choices in the two framing conditions are then compared. However, different preferences between the conditions can be due to changes in the evaluation of the single constituent options or due to specific processes triggered by the choice task. In order to clarify the source of the framing effect, we investigate the effect with different response modes: choice, rating, and ranking. The rating and ranking findings indicate that what is commonly called a risky choice framing effect is actually a framing effect that changes the evaluation of only the riskless option, although there is little or no effect on the risky option. According to these findings, risky choice framing might be construed as a process of attribute framing, which is independent of risk preference in choice contexts. ParticipantsParticipants were 138 students (89, i.e., 65% female and 49 male) of different disciplines of the University of Salzburg. Figure 3. Experiment 3-choice/effectiveness ratings (left) and emotion ratings (right). Error bars indicate two standard errors 114Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

show abstract

The Collapsing Choice Theory: Dissociating Choice and Judgment in Decision Making

Abstract: choice, judgment, working memory, mental models, decision making, monty hall dilemma, D70, D80, D81, D84,

Cited by 15 publications

References 36 publications

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

A randomised Monty Hall experiment: The positive effect of conditional frequency feedback

Why Humans Fail in Solving the Monty Hall Dilemma: A Systematic Review

Choice, Rating, and Ranking: Framing Effects with Different Response Modes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About