Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
John Amson Capitman, PhD. Nickerson Professor of Health Policy Central Valley Health Policy Institute California State University, Fresno.
Advertisements

The imperfect brain: Rationality and the limits of knowledge Quentin Huys Wellcome Trust Neuroimaging Centre Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit Medical.
2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans At-A-Glance U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
An Exploration of Decision Processes in an Evolutionary Perspective: the Case of the Framing Effect.
1 Intuitive Irrationality: Reasons for Unreason. 2 Epistemology Branch of philosophy focused on how people acquire knowledge about the world Descriptive.
Thinking: Concept Formation Concept formation: identifying commonalities across stimuli that unite them into a common category Rule learning: identifying.
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
The Disordered Brain what happens when decision making goes wrong? Neil Harrison University of Sussex Formerly: Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience & Wellcome.
Survey.
Decision making and economics. Economic theories Economic theories provide normative standards Expected value Expected utility Specialized branches like.
Running Experiments with Amazon Mechanical-Turk Gabriele Paolacci, Jesse Chandler, Jesse Chandler Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 5, No. 5, August 2010.
Or Why We’re Not Really As Rational As We’d Like to Believe.
HYPOTHESIS TESTS ABOUT THE MEAN AND PROPORTION
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
Math 227 Elementary Statistics
Modular 15 Ch 10.1 to 10.2 Part I. Ch 10.1 The Language of Hypothesis Testing Objective A : Set up a Hypothesis Testing Objective B : Type I or Type II.
STUDYING HEADACHES 英二 1 7 th Nov Summary Headaches are not just a problem for the person suffering form the headache. They are a problem for society.
Hypothesis Testing A hypothesis is a conjecture about a population. Typically, these hypotheses will be stated in terms of a parameter such as  (mean)
Copyright © 2000 by Harcourt, Inc. All rights reserved. What is Perception? Perception: The process of recognizing and understanding others By understanding.
Testing Hypotheses Tuesday, October 28. Objectives: Understand the logic of hypothesis testing and following related concepts Sidedness of a test (left-,
Review of Related Literature Different decision-making: – Budget decisions of managers – Irrationality of continuing the risk of losing a prospect – Decision-making.
School of Clinical Medicine School of Clinical Medicine UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE Headache Jane Smith, a 23 year old woman, presents to her GP complaining.
Decision making Making decisions Optimal decisions Violations of rationality.
Framing Effects From Chapter 34 ‘Frame and Reality’ of Thinking Fast and Slow, by D. Kahneman.
RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS Special Lectures University of Kuwait Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics Harvard University January 13th, 14th and.
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
Psychology 485 March 23,  Intro & Definitions Why learn about probabilities and risk?  What is learned? Expected Utility Prospect Theory Scalar.
PSY 323 – Cognition Chapter 13: Judgment, Decisions & Reasoning.
Survey Research And a few words about elite interviewing.
1 DECISION MAKING Suppose your patient (from the Brazilian rainforest) has tested positive for a rare but serious disease. Treatment exists but is risky.
TODAY’S GOALS Conduct beginning of class debates.
Hypothesis Testing Introduction to Statistics Chapter 8 Feb 24-26, 2009 Classes #12-13.
1 BAMS 517 – 2011 Decision Analysis -IV Utility Failures and Prospect Theory Martin L. Puterman UBC Sauder School of Business Winter Term
Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen.
Everybody’s Talking… Welcome to the Safe Harbor Term LIFE Insurance "SafeHarbor is more than protection for the catastrophe of death... it is here for.
Heuristics and Biases Thomas R. Stewart, Ph.D. Center for Policy Research Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany State University.
+ Homework 9.1:1-8, 21 & 22 Reading Guide 9.2 Section 9.1 Significance Tests: The Basics.
Protect yourself – Protect your Income. What would happen if you couldn’t work and earn an income? Do you have any financial arrangements in place if.
Things to know before your medical abortion procedure
IE 485 «Decision Making in Health Care»
Behavioral Economics Chapter 30.
Topic 1: Samples and Populations
Scientific Methodology in Psychology
Chapter 9: Testing a Claim
Unit 5: Hypothesis Testing
Tests of Significance The reasoning of significance tests
Effects of Foreign Language on Decision Making
Probability and Statistics Chapter 3 Notes
PSY 323 – Cognition Chapter 13: Judgment, Decisions & Reasoning.
Chapter 12 Tests with Qualitative Data
Don’t Nudge Me: The Limits of Behavioral Economics in Medicine
Live In Security… Leave a Legacy
Do Now Now: Grab your novels 15 minutes of silent reading
1st: Representativeness Heuristic and Conjunction Errors 2nd: Risk Attitude and Framing Effects Psychology 355:
These slides are preview slides
Everybody’s Talking… Welcome to the Safe Harbor Term LIFE Insurance
Hypothesis Tests for a Population Mean,
Chapter 3 Probability.
Shared Decision Making with Older Adults: Evidence and Policy
DIS 280 Social Science Research Methodology: Problem Framing
Significance Tests: The Basics
Recognizing Bias February 13, 2008.
Choices, Values and Frames
Hypothesis Testing.
Chapter 31 Behavioral Economics.
Unit 7 Quiz: Review questions
Chapter 10: Comparing Two Populations or Groups
Intro to Epidemiology – Investigation 4-2: Acceptable Risk
Warm-Up Honors Algebra /11/19
STAT 515 Statistical Methods I Chapter 1 Data Types and Data Collection Brian Habing Department of Statistics University of South Carolina Redistribution.
Presentation transcript:

Rationality Alan Kaylor Cline Department of Computer Sciences The University of Texas at Austin Based upon classic decision puzzlers collected by Gretchen Chapman of Rutgers University

1. Conjunction Fallacy:   A health survey was conducted in a representative sample of adult males in Chicago of all ages and occupations. Mr. F was included in the sample. He was selected by random chance from the list of participants. Please rank the following statements in terms of which is most likely to be true of Mr. F. (1=more likely to be true, 6=least likely) 1. ____ Mr. F smokes more than 1 cigarette per day on average. 2. ____ Mr. F has had one or more heart attacks. 3. ____ Mr. F had a flu shot this year. 4. ____ Mr. F eats red meat at least once per week. 5. ____ Mr. F has had one or more heart attacks and he is over 55 years old. 6. ____ Mr. F never flosses his teeth.

1. Conjunction Fallacy:   A health survey was conducted in a representative sample of adult males in Chicago of all ages and occupations. Mr. F was included in the sample. He was selected by random chance from the list of participants. Please rank the following statements in terms of which is most likely to be true of Mr. F. (1=more likely to be true, 6=least likely) 1. ____ Mr. F smokes more than 1 cigarette per day on average. 2. ____ Mr. F has had one or more heart attacks. 3. ____ Mr. F had a flu shot this year. 4. ____ Mr. F eats red meat at least once per week. 5. ____ Mr. F has had one or more heart attacks and he is over 55 years old. 6. ____ Mr. F never flosses his teeth. Choice 5 includes choice 2, yet in the survey 21% rated “5” more likely than “2”. Everyone should rank “2” more likely than “”5”.

For more information, see: 1. Conjunction Fallacy:   For more information, see: Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.

2. Reflection Framing Effect: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows: 

2. Reflection Framing Effect: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows:  Group A is told: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved.

2. Reflection Framing Effect: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows:  Group A is told: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. 67%  If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. 33%

2. Reflection Framing Effect: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows:  Group B is told: If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die.   If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.

2. Reflection Framing Effect: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for outbreak of an unusual disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the program are as follows:  Group B is told: If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die. 8%   If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die. 92%

2. Reflection Framing Effect:   Group A is told: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. 67%  If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. 33% Group B is told: If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die. 8%   If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die. 92% The results are almost inverted even though Program A for Group A is logically equal to Program C for Group B and Program B for Group A is logically equal to Program D for Group B.

2. Reflection Framing Effect:   Group A is told: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. 67%  If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. 33% Group B is told: If Program C is adopted, 400 people will die. 8%   If Program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die. 92%

2. Reflection Framing Effect:   For more information, see: Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.

3. Multiple Alternatives:   The patient is a 67-year-old farmer with chronic right hip pain. The diagnosis is osteoarthritis. You have tried several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., aspirin, naproxen, and ketoprofen) and have stopped them because of either adverse effects or lack of efficacy. You decide to refer him to an orthopedic consultant for consideration for hip replacement surgery. The patient agrees to this plan.

3. Multiple Alternatives:   The patient is a 67-year-old farmer with chronic right hip pain. The diagnosis is osteoarthritis. You have tried several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., aspirin, naproxen, and ketoprofen) and have stopped them because of either adverse effects or lack of efficacy. You decide to refer him to an orthopedic consultant for consideration for hip replacement surgery. The patient agrees to this plan. Group A: Before sending him away, however, you check the drug formulary and find that there is one nonsteroidal medication that this patient has not tried (ibuprofen). What do you do? 1. Refer to orthopedics and also start ibuprofen. 2. Refer to orthopedics and do not start any new medication.

3. Multiple Alternatives:   The patient is a 67-year-old farmer with chronic right hip pain. The diagnosis is osteoarthritis. You have tried several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., aspirin, naproxen, and ketoprofen) and have stopped them because of either adverse effects or lack of efficacy. You decide to refer him to an orthopedic consultant for consideration for hip replacement surgery. The patient agrees to this plan. Group A: Before sending him away, however, you check the drug formulary and find that there is one nonsteroidal medication that this patient has not tried (ibuprofen). What do you do? 1. Refer to orthopedics and also start ibuprofen. 89% 2. Refer to orthopedics and do not start any new medication. 11%

3. Multiple Alternatives:   The patient is a 67-year-old farmer with chronic right hip pain. The diagnosis is osteoarthritis. You have tried several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., aspirin, naproxen, and ketoprofen) and have stopped them because of either adverse effects or lack of efficacy. You decide to refer him to an orthopedic consultant for consideration for hip replacement surgery. The patient agrees to this plan. Group B: Before sending him away, however, you check the drug formulary and find that there is one nonsteroidal medication that this patient has not tried (ibuprofen). What do you do? 1. Refer to orthopedics and also start ibuprofen. 35% 2. Refer to orthopedics and also start piroxicam. 4% 3. Refer to orthopedics and do not start any new medication. 58%

3. Multiple Alternatives:   The patient is a 67-year-old farmer with chronic right hip pain. The diagnosis is osteoarthritis. You have tried several nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (e.g., aspirin, naproxen, and ketoprofen) and have stopped them because of either adverse effects or lack of efficacy. You decide to refer him to an orthopedic consultant for consideration for hip replacement surgery. The patient agrees to this plan. Group B: Before sending him away, however, you check the drug formulary and find that there is one nonsteroidal medication that this patient has not tried (ibuprofen). What do you do? 1. Refer to orthopedics and also start ibuprofen. 35% 2. Refer to orthopedics and also start piroxicam. 4% 3. Refer to orthopedics and do not start any new medication. 58% But option 2 in for Group A is the same as option 3 Group B, thus we conclude that discovery of a new drug may lead to worse patient care.

3. Multiple Alternatives: Before sending him away, however, you check the drug formulary and find that there is one nonsteroidal medication that this patient has not tried (ibuprofen). What do you do? Group A: 1. Refer to orthopedics and also start ibuprofen. 89% 3. Refer to orthopedics and do not start any new medication. 11% Group B: 1. Refer to orthopedics and also start ibuprofen. 35% 2. Refer to orthopedics and also start piroxicam. 4% 3. Refer to orthopedics and do not start any new medication. 58%

3. Multiple Alternatives:   For more information, see: Redelmeier, D.A. & Shafir, E. (1995). Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA, 273(4), 302-305

4. Attraction effect: Group A: Three options Imagine that one of your patients suffers from migraine headaches that last about 3 hours and involve intense pain, nausea, dizziness, and hyper-sensitivity to bright lights and loud noises. The patient usually needs to lie quietly in a dark room until the headache passes. Out of every 365 days (1 year), this patient has a migraine headache on about 100 of those days (8.3 per month). Of course, on a day when the patient has a headache, she doesn't spend the entire day in pain, but only about 3 hours of that day. You are considering three medications that you could prescribe for this patient. All three medications have only negligible side effects, and any side effects are the same for the three. Each medication comes in the form of pills that must be taken once per day. The medications differ in effectiveness and cost. The patient has a low income and must pay the cost because her insurance plan does not cover any of these medications. And of course the patient is also the one who appreciates the effectiveness.   Group A: Three options Drug A: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 30 days with a headache per year. It costs $350 per year. 11%  Drug B: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 50 days with a headache per year. It costs $100 per year. 88% Drug C: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 60 days with a headache per year. It costs $100 per year. 0%

4. Attraction effect: Group B: Two options Imagine that one of your patients suffers from migraine headaches that last about 3 hours and involve intense pain, nausea, dizziness, and hyper-sensitivity to bright lights and loud noises. The patient usually needs to lie quietly in a dark room until the headache passes. Out of every 365 days (1 year), this patient has a migraine headache on about 100 of those days (8.3 per month). Of course, on a day when the patient has a headache, she doesn't spend the entire day in pain, but only about 3 hours of that day. You are considering three medications that you could prescribe for this patient. All three medications have only negligible side effects, and any side effects are the same for the three. Each medication comes in the form of pills that must be taken once per day. The medications differ in effectiveness and cost. The patient has a low income and must pay the cost because her insurance plan does not cover any of these medications. And of course the patient is also the one who appreciates the effectiveness.   Group B: Two options Drug A: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 30 days with a headache per year. It costs $350 per year. 35%  Drug B: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 50 days with a headache per year. It costs $100 per year. 65%

4. Attraction effect:  Group A: Three options Drug A: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 30 days with a headache per year. It costs $350 per year. 11%  Drug B: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 50 days with a headache per year. It costs $100 per year. 88% Drug C: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 60 days with a headache per year. It costs $100 per year. 0% Group B: Two options Drug A: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 30 days with a headache per year. It costs $350 per year. 35%  Drug B: reduces the number of headaches from 100 days with a headache per year to 50 days with a headache per year. It costs $100 per year. 65% But the information about Drugs A and B in the three option version is the same as the information about Drugs A and B in the two option version. The addition of the Drug C, although chosen by no one, has increased the selection of Drug B.

4. Attraction effect:  For more information, see: Huber, J., Payne, J.W. & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1), 90-98; and Chapman, G.B. & Malik, M.M. (1995). The attraction effect in prescribing decisions and consumer choice. Medical Decision Making, 15, 414.