This paper attempts to identify behavioral patterns and compare their average success considering several criteria of bounded rationality. Experimentally observed choice behavior in various decision tasks is used to assess heterogeneity in how individual participants respond to 15 randomly ordered portfolio choices, each of which is experienced twice. Treatments differ in granting probability information and in eliciting aspirations. Since in our setting neither other regarding concerns nor risk attitude matter and probability of the binary chance move is choice irrelevant, categorizing (...) decision types relies on parameter dependence and choice adaptations. We find that most participants reduce systematically sub-optimality when following the identified criteria. (shrink)

We revisit the sequential search problem by Hey. In a 2 ×\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\times $$\end{document} 2 factorial design, varying fixed and random cost treatments with and without recall, we address open research questions that were originally stated by Hey. Our results provide clear evidence for Hey’s conjecture that recall negatively affects performance in sequential search. With experience, however, search behavior with and without recall converges toward the optimal reservation rule. We further find that (...) the utilization of optimal reservation rules is independent from the stochastic nature of the search cost. (shrink)

Lying for a strategic advantage is to be expected in commercial interactions. But would this be more or less obvious when lying could come from either party and question mutually profitable exchange? To explore this, we modify the acquiring-a-company game by letting both, buyer and seller, be privately informed. Specifically, the value of the company for the buyer is known only by the seller; whereas, only the buyer is aware by which proportion the sellers evaluation is lower than that of (...) the buyer. Before bargaining, both parties can reveal what they know via cheap-talk numerical messages. Game theoretically, the pooling equilibrium may or may not allow for trade depending on the commonly known expected evaluation discrepancy. By mutually revealing what one knows, one could boost trade and efficiency. Although strategic misreporting prevails quite generally, it is higher for sellers throughout the experiment. Regarding gender, women misreport less, especially as sellers, and offer higher prices. (shrink)

This paper attempts to empirically assess how advice may reduce suboptimality in a portfolio choice experiment with risk-neutral participants induced via binary-lottery incentives. Previous studies with a larger set of choice tasks report overwhelming evidence of suboptimality and how it is slightly reduced by learning and experience. Participants confront 15 randomly ordered portfolio choices, which they experience again in 2 successive phases. Intermediate advice between phases alerts participants that less-risky investments can improve the outcome for at least one chance event (...) without harming their success chances in the other random event. Compared to the pure choice treatment, another cognitively more demanding treatment additionally asks participants to form event-specific success aspirations that allow us to test satisficing and its optimality. The results show that intermediate advice increases the share of satisficing but not of optimal behavior beyond learning through experience. However, it significantly lowers the average distance from optimality. (shrink)

In experimental economics one can confront a “don’t!”, as in “do not deceive your participants!”, as well as a “do!”, as in “incentivize choice making!”. Neither exists in experimental psychology. Further controversies exist in data collection methods, e.g., play strategy (vector) method in game experiments, and how to guarantee external and internal validity by describing experimental scenarios by field-related vignettes or by abstract, often formal, rules as it is used in decision and game theory. We emphasize that differences between the (...) experimental methodology of the two disciplines are minor rather than substantial and suggest that such differences should be resolved, as much as possible, through empirical research. Rather than focusing on familiar debates, we suggest to substitute the revealed-motive approach in experimental economics by designs whose data not only inform about choice, but also about the reasoning dynamics. (shrink)

In this study, we investigate how economic agents choose gambling partners and how paired risky choices differ from individual ones. To this aim, we develop a simple model and design a laboratory experiment that allows us to compare individual versus paired decisions across two treatments, where pairs are, respectively, exogenously and endogenously formed. In both treatments, paired subjects decide individually and independently how to allocate their wealth over a portfolio of lotteries and fully commit to share any winnings. The main (...) result from our experiment is that whenever agents are allowed to choose a gambling partner they decide to team up with other agents who display the same degree of risk aversion as themselves. Moreover, paired choices consistently involve higher risk taking than individual choices. This finding is more evident when information on subjects’ risk attitudes is made available and when subjects team up in homogeneous pairs, thereby confirming that subjects successfully exploit the benefits of mutual insurance. (shrink)