How does language games strategies and decision making pdf download decision-making in social interactions and decision biases? Compare choices when the experiment is conducted in different languages.
More familiar language leads to more trust and trustworthiness. This paper investigates how communication in a particular language affects decision-making in social interactions and risk preferences. We test two competing hypotheses: the cognitive accessibility hypothesis, and the expectation-based hypothesis. The cognitive accessibility hypothesis argues that communication in a particular language will activate the underlying cultural frame and affect behavior. The expectation-based hypothesis argues that different languages will induce different expectations regarding the choices of others and affect behavior. We test these two hypotheses using an extensive range of behaviors in a set of incentivized experiments with bilingual subjects in Chinese and English. However, no treatment effects are observed in the individual choice games on social preference.
The results are more in line with the expectation-based hypothesis. Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. I thank Werner Güth, Soo Hong Chew, James Konow, John List, Li-Jun Ji, Toru Suzuki, Tao Zhu, Rami Zwick, Juan Juan Meng, Joseph Tao-yi Wang, Songfa Zhong, Fuhai Hong, Yan Chen, Chunlei Yang, participants at the Max Planck Institute of Economics research seminar 2009, Foundations and Applications of Utility, Risk and Decision Theory 2010, Xiamen University International Workshop on Experimental Economics and Finance 2012, China Meeting of the Econometric Society 2013, and especially Robert Wyer for useful comments and discussions. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Max Planck Society. Decision-making is a fundamental element of any sport, especially open, fast, dynamic team sports such as volleyball, football, soccer, rugby, and basketball.
In order to succeed in winning any game and competition at national and international level in all individual and team sports there is a need to reconsider all success factors in order to make a better decision to win. At the elite level, coaches and athletes appear to consistently make good decisions in situations that are highly temporally constrained. Although there is no systematic ways of decisionmaking in sports for decision making agents such as coaches, athletes, and referees, there are some characteristics that seem general enough to take away from these fields. This article is to identify these features, then relate them to the methods applied to study decisions in sports by mostly focusing on coaches and athletes. Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014. It complements “rationality as optimization”, which views decision-making as a fully rational process of finding an optimal choice given the information available. Simon used the analogy of a pair of scissors, where one blade represents “cognitive limitations” of actual humans and the other the “structures of the environment”, illustrating how minds compensate for limited resources by exploiting known structural regularity in the environment.
The concept of bounded rationality revises this assumption to account for the fact that perfectly rational decisions are often not feasible in practice because of the intractability of natural decision problems and the finite computational resources available for making them. Simon points out that most people are only partly rational, and are irrational in the remaining part of their actions. Simon describes a number of dimensions along which “classical” models of rationality can be made somewhat more realistic, while sticking within the vein of fairly rigorous formalization. They do this because of the complexity of the situation, and their inability to process and compute the expected utility of every alternative action. Deliberation costs might be high and there are often other concurrent economic activities also requiring decisions. This puts the study of decision procedures on the research agenda. Rather, they have considered how decisions may be crippled by limitations to rationality, or have modeled how people might cope with their inability to optimize.
The advantage of this approach is that it avoids having to specify in detail the process of reasoning, but rather simply assumes that whatever the process is, it is good enough to get near to the optimum. Because of this expansion of the bounds of rationality, machine automated decision making makes markets more efficient. Bounded rationality implicates the idea that humans take reasoning shortcuts that may lead to suboptimal decision-making. Behavioral economists engage in mapping the decision shortcuts that agents use in order to help increase the effectiveness of human decision-making. Sunstein and Thaler recommend that choice architectures are modified in light of human agents’ bounded rationality. A widely cited proposal from Sunstein and Thaler urges that healthier food be placed at sight level in order to increase the likelihood that a person will opt for that choice instead of less healthy option.