The description-experience gap: A meta-analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19230/jonnpr.3658Keywords:
description-experience gap, choice behavior, decision making, cumulative prospect theoryAbstract
Choice behavior differs depending on how the information about options is presented to the subjects, via either descriptions or experience (1), a phenomenon called the description-experience gap. Cumulative Prospect Theory (2) implies overweighting of rare events, but when options are experienced instead of described, the opposite result is found: rare events are underweighted (1,3). Our meta-analysis studied three important factors on the description-experience gap related to Cumulative Prospect Theory: the over- and under-weighting of rare events in description- and experience-based tasks, the task domain and the probability of the rare event. Aside from these three elements, another three additional factors were studied: the existence of a certain option, the description task paradigm and the experience task paradigm. Recently, a meta-analysis on this topic was published (4), which focused on one specific type of experience task paradigm called sampling. In the present meta-analysis, we focused on the other major experience task paradigm –feedback paradigm– and the combination of both paradigms, to see if we could find differential effects between their meta-analytical approach and ours. However, this was not the case, as we found similar results, being the effect consistent across factors and methods. We conclude that the fact that the reference model (2) is a descriptive one, and that the factor most frequently evoked to explain the description- experience gap is sampling biases in the experience-based tasks – which are part of the methodology of the task itself – suggests that the description-experience gap is an irreducible psychological phenomenon (i.e. a phenomenon that does not rely on other psychological mechanisms, but solely on the methodology of the task).
Downloads
References
Artinger, F., Fleischhut, N., Levati, M. V., & Stevens, J. R. (2012). Cooperation in a risky environment: Decisions from experience in a stochastic social dilemma. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 84–89). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Ashby, N. J. S. (2017). Numeracy predicts preference consistency: Deliberative search heuristics increase choice consistency for choices from description and experience. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(2), 128–139.
Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2003). Small Feedback-based Decisions and Their Limited Correspondence to Description-based Decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 215–233.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Subgroup analyses. In Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2014). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Englewood, N.J.: Biostat.
Borenstein, M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2013). Meta-analysis and subgroups. Prevention Science, 14(2), 134–143.
Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Rothstein, H. R., & Hedges, L. V. (2017). I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Retrieved from https://www.meta-analysis-workshops.com/download/common-mistakes1.pdf
Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2009a). The role of representation in experience-based choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(7), 518–529.
Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2009b). Within-subject preference reversals in description- and experience-based choice. In N. Taatgen, H. van Rijn, L. Schomaker, & J. Nerbonne (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 449–454). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2011a). Description- and experience-based choice: Does equivalent information equal equivalent choice? Acta Psychologica, 136(3), 276–284.
Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2011b). When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 377–384.
Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The long and short of it: Closing the description-experience “gap” by taking the long-run view. Cognition, 126(1), 54–71.
Catania, A. C., Matthews, B. A., & Shimoff, E. (1982). Instructed versus shaped human verbal behavior: Interactions with nonverbal responding. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 38(3), 233–248.
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Dersimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-Analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188.
Dutt, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2012a). Decisions from experience reduce misconceptions about climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(1), 19–29.
Dutt, V., & Gonzalez, C. (2012b). Why Do We Want to Delay Actions on Climate Change? Effects of Probability and Timing of Climate Consequences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(2), 154–164.
Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A. E., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S. M., Hau, R., … Lebiere, C. (2010). A Choice Prediction Competition: Choices from Experience and from Description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 15–47.
Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (2014). Maximization, learning, and economic behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 3), 10818–10825.
Fantino, E., & Navarro, A. (2012). Description-experience Gaps: Assessments in Other Choice Paradigms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(3), 303–314.
Fox, C. R., & Hadar, L. (2006). “Decisions from experience” = sampling error + prospect theory: Reconsidering Hertwig, Barron, Weber & Erev (2004). Judgment and Decision Making, 1(2), 159–161.
Galizio, M. (1979). Contingency-shaped and rule-governed behavior: Instructional control of human loss avoidance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31(1), 53–70.
Glöckner, A., Fiedler, S., Hochman, G., Ayal, S., & Hilbig, B. E. (2012). Processing differences between descriptions and experience: a comparative analysis using eye-tracking and physiological measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(173), 1–15.
Glöckner, A., Hilbig, B. E., Henninger, F., & Fiedler, S. (2016). The Reversed Description-Experience Gap: Disentangling Sources of Presentation Format Effects in Risky Choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(4), 486–508.
Gottlieb, D. A., Weiss, T., & Chapman, G. B. (2007). The Format in Which Is Information Uncertainty Decision Biases Presented Affects. Psychological Science, 18(3), 240–246.
Griffin, D., & Brenner, L. (2008). Perspectives on Probability Judgment Calibration. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 177–199). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl 1), 29–37.
Harman, J. L., & Gonzalez, C. (2015). Allais from Experience: Choice Consistency, Rare Events, and Common Consequences in Repeated Decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(4), 369–381.
Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Decisions From Experience and Statistical Probabilities: Why They Trigger Different Choices Than a Priori Probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 48–68.
Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., Kiefer, J., & Hertwig, R. (2008). The Description-Experience Gap in Risky Choice: The Role of Sample Size and Experienced Probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(5), 493–518.
Hertwig, R. (2012). The psychology and rationality of decisions from experience. Synthese, 187(1), 269–292.
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from Experience and the Effect of Rare Events in Risky Choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539.
Hilbig, B. E., & Glöckner, A. (2011). Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition. Acta Psychologica, 138(3), 390–396.
Kellen, D., Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). How (in)variant are subjective representations of described and experienced risk and rewards? Cognition, 157, 126–138.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York: Sentry Press.
Kudryavtsev, A., & Pavlodsky, J. (2012). Description-based and experience-based decisions: individual analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(3), 316–331.
Lejarraga, T. (2010). When Experience Is Better Than Description: Time Delays and Complexity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 100–116.
Lejarraga, T., & Gonzalez, C. (2011). Effects of feedback and complexity on repeated decisions from description. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 286–295.
Lejarraga, T., Pachur, T., Frey, R., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Decisions from Experience: From Monetary to Medical Gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(1), 67–77.
Liberman, V., & Tversky, A. (1993). On the Evaluation of Probability Judgments: Calibration, Resolution, and Monotonicity. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 162–173.
Ludvig, E. A., & Spetch, M. L. (2011). Of Black Swans and Tossed Coins: Is the Description-Experience Gap in Risky Choice Limited to Rare Events? PloS One, 6(6), e20262.
Madan, C. R., Ludvig, E. A., & Spetch, M. L. (2017). The role of memory in distinguishing risky decisions from experience and description. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(10), 2048–2059.
Martin, J. M., Gonzalez, C., Juvina, I., & Lebiere, C. (2014). A Description-Experience Gap in Social Interactions: Information about Interdependence and Its Effects on Cooperation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27(4), 349–362.
Matthews, B. A., Catania, A. C., & Shimoff, E. (1985). Effects of uninstructed verbal behavior on nonverbal responding: Contingency descriptions versus performance descriptions. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43(2), 155–164.
Matthews, B. A., Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1977). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity to ratio and interval contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27(3), 453–467.
Mchugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
Oeberst, A., Haberstroh, S., & Gnambs, T. (2015). Not really the same: Computerized and real lotteries in decision making research. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 250–257.
Rakow, T., Demes, K. A., & Newell, B. R. (2008). Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(2), 168–179.
Rakow, T., & Newell, B. R. (2010). Degrees of Uncertainty: An Overview and Framework for Future Research on Experience-Based Choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 1–14.
Rakow, T., & Rahim, S. B. (2010). Developmental Insights into Experience-based Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 69–82.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.
Shimoff, E., Catania, A. C., & Matthews, B. A. (1981). Uninstructed human responding: Sensitivity of low-rate performance to schedule contingencies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36(2), 207–220.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. (R. M. Elliott, Ed.). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
Ungemach, C., Chater, N., & Stewart, N. (2009). Are Probabilities Overweighted or Underweighted When Rare Outcomes Are Experienced (Rarely)? Psychological Science, 20(4), 473–479.
Viudez, A., Keating, J., & Arantes, J. (2017). The description-experience gap and its relation to instructional control: Do people rely more on their experience than in objective descriptions? Journal of Negative and No Positive Results, 2(12), 667–675.
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A.-R. (2004). Predicting Risk Sensitivity in Humans and Lower Animals: Risk as Variance or Coefficient of Variation. Psychological Review, 111(2), 430–445.
Wulff, D. U., Canseco, M. M., & Hertwig, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of two modes of learning and the description-experience gap. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 111–139.
Wulff, D. U., Hills, T. T., & Hertwig, R. (2015). Online Product Reviews and the Description-Experience Gap. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(3), 214–223.
Yechiam, E., Barron, G., & Erev, I. (2005). The Role of Personal Experience in Contributing to Different Patterns of Response to Rare Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(3), 430–439.
Yoon, S., Vo, K., & Venkatraman, V. (2017). Variability in decision strategies across description-based and experience-based decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.
Published
Issue
Section
License
All accepted originals remain the property of JONNPR. In the event of publication, the authors exclusively transfer their rights of reproduction, distribution, translation and public communication (by any sound, audiovisual or electronic medium or format) of their work. To do so, the authors shall sign a letter transferring these rights when sending the paper via the online manuscript management system.
The articles published in the journal are freely used under the terms of the Creative Commons BY NC SA license, therefore.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
