Experimental 'Beauty Contest' Game and Simultaneous Decision-Making within Various Groups

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Rymanov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Beauty Contest

scholarly journals EXPERIMENTAL “BEAUTY CONTEST” GAME AND SIMULTANEOUS DECISION-MAKING WITHIN VARIOUS GROUPS

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Rymanov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Experimental Study ◽  
Experimental Design ◽  
Group Size ◽  
Factor Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Beauty Contest ◽  
Main Effects

The paper examines experimental guessing “p-beauty contest” game. The objective of the study is to conduct an experimental study of simultaneous decision-making by subjects within various groups in the “p-beauty contest” guessing game, and to estimate the influence of various factors. The interac-tion of factors was evaluated. The contribution to this study extends the analysis of simultaneous de-cision-making by individuals within various groups to the conditions of the “p-beauty contest” game. The subjects simultaneously took decisions, while being part of a group of three subjects, and as part of a group of six subjects. The results from the experiment showed that the subjects make more ra-tional decisions, being in the larger group. The four-factor (a p-value, a group size, a period, and num-ber of subjects) experimental design shows that the Factors “p-value” and “Number of subjects” main effects were significant. Further, the Factor “p-value” by Factor “Group size,” the Factor “Group size” by Factor “Period,” the Factor “Group size” by Factor “Number of subjects,” and the Factor “Period” by Factor “Number of subjects” interactions were also significant.

Stress and strategic decision-making in the beauty contest game

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 1503-1511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Leder ◽  
Jan Alexander Häusser ◽  
Andreas Mojzisch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Strategic Decision ◽  
Strategic Decision Making ◽  
Beauty Contest

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

The primacy of conscious decision making – ERRATUM

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision

The primacy of conscious decision making – RETRACTION

2014 ◽  
Vol 38 (01) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
David R. Shanks ◽  
Ben R. Newell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conscious Decision

Abstraction: An alternative neurocognitive account of recognition, prediction, and decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie F. Reyna ◽  
David A. Broniatowski
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Systems Engineering ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Trace Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽  
Abstract Representations ◽  
Technical Systems

Abstract Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document