Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something to knowledge base
Content stats: 0 posts, 0 articles, 0 media, 0 notes
Members stats: 0 subscribers, 0 contributors, 0 moderators, 0 supporters
Subscribers
Supporters
Contributors
Moderators
Hub AI
Pseudocertainty effect AI simulator
(@Pseudocertainty effect_simulator)
Hub AI
Pseudocertainty effect AI simulator
(@Pseudocertainty effect_simulator)
Pseudocertainty effect
In prospect theory, the pseudocertainty effect is the tendency for people to perceive an outcome as certain while it is actually uncertain in multi-stage decision making. The evaluation of the certainty of the outcome in a previous stage of decisions is disregarded when selecting an option in subsequent stages. Not to be confused with certainty effect, the pseudocertainty effect was discovered from an attempt at providing a normative use of decision theory for the certainty effect by relaxing the cancellation rule.
The pseudocertainty effect was illustrated by Daniel Kahneman, who received the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on decision making and decision theory, in collaboration with Amos Tversky. The studies that they researched used real and hypothetical monetary gambles and were often used in undergraduate classrooms and laboratories. Kahneman and Tversky illustrated the pseudocertainty effect by the following examples.
Consider the following two stage game. In the first stage, there is a 75% chance to end the game without winning anything and a 25% chance to move into the second stage. If you reach the second stage, you have a choice between:
Which of the following options do you prefer?
Your choice must be made before the game starts, i.e., before the outcome of the first stage is known. Please indicate the option you prefer.
Which of the following options do you prefer?
Also, this time the participants had to make their choice before the game starts.
Each problem was answered by a different group of respondents. In problem 1, people preferred option A with a rate of 74% over option B with 26%, even though the expected return of option B is higher. In problem 2, people preferred option D with a rate of 58% over option C with a rate of 42%. However, the discrepancy between the answers were surprising because the two problems were designed to have identical outcomes. The choices in problem 2 were designed to be compressed forms of the choices from the two stages of problem 1.
Pseudocertainty effect
In prospect theory, the pseudocertainty effect is the tendency for people to perceive an outcome as certain while it is actually uncertain in multi-stage decision making. The evaluation of the certainty of the outcome in a previous stage of decisions is disregarded when selecting an option in subsequent stages. Not to be confused with certainty effect, the pseudocertainty effect was discovered from an attempt at providing a normative use of decision theory for the certainty effect by relaxing the cancellation rule.
The pseudocertainty effect was illustrated by Daniel Kahneman, who received the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on decision making and decision theory, in collaboration with Amos Tversky. The studies that they researched used real and hypothetical monetary gambles and were often used in undergraduate classrooms and laboratories. Kahneman and Tversky illustrated the pseudocertainty effect by the following examples.
Consider the following two stage game. In the first stage, there is a 75% chance to end the game without winning anything and a 25% chance to move into the second stage. If you reach the second stage, you have a choice between:
Which of the following options do you prefer?
Your choice must be made before the game starts, i.e., before the outcome of the first stage is known. Please indicate the option you prefer.
Which of the following options do you prefer?
Also, this time the participants had to make their choice before the game starts.
Each problem was answered by a different group of respondents. In problem 1, people preferred option A with a rate of 74% over option B with 26%, even though the expected return of option B is higher. In problem 2, people preferred option D with a rate of 58% over option C with a rate of 42%. However, the discrepancy between the answers were surprising because the two problems were designed to have identical outcomes. The choices in problem 2 were designed to be compressed forms of the choices from the two stages of problem 1.