Lab 6
Monty Hall, Wason Selection, & Risky Decisions
Monty Hall, Wason Selection, & Risky Decisions
Strategy Winning Percent
Stay with initial door 0.367
Switch to other door 0.000
● Did your results match those predicted as described in the output? Explain how your results did or did not match the prediction.
Yes, my results do match those predicted. I consistently stayed, minimizing my wins, only being correct 36% of the time, very close to the 33% expected.
● Why does switching your choice lead to better odds in the long run?
When beginning the trial with 3 options, you only have a 33% chance of being correct. However, by removing a door that has a 100% chance of being empty, the odds change. You are now faced with a new choice. Without switching doors, the 1/3 odds remain consistent as when you first started, but by switching, you are changing your odds of winning to 2/3, or 66% (MindTap, 2014).
Condition Mean Number of Cards Correct
Abstract 2.000
Thematic 2.000
● Why should we expect that the proportion correct should be higher for the thematic rules?
When using conditional reasoning, we must apply logic. This can be difficult for abstract concepts, where we typically confirm a rule, but not conduct the necessary step of the falsification principle (Goldstein, 2019). When the information is presented with real life information, the syllogisms are easier to understand because we have the advantage of using our schemas. Although there are different suggested reasons, such as permissions and cheating explanations, these real-world scenarios trigger us to both confirm and falsify, necessary to get the correct answer (Goldstein, 2019).
● What does the Wason Selection task tell us about seeking confirmation of our beliefs versus seeking falsification of our beliefs?
This Wason logic puzzle tells us that our reasoning is affected by the context, with real-life situations being easier for us to correctly resolve, using both confirmation and falsification. However, when the task uses abstract content, our logic process is more difficult and often incorrect.
Condition Less Risky More Risky
Small Gain 0.000 0.500
Large Gain 0.000 0.500
Small Loss 0.250 0.250
Large Loss 0.250 0.000
● Did you get the predicted results? If so, how so? If not, why not?
My results partially conformed to the predicted. I equally took the riskier option for the small and large gain conditions, but I was less risk-seeking than predicted in the large and small loss conditions and avoided large losses by choosing low- risk 100% of the time, which was not predicted.
● What does this study demonstrate? In other words, what is the main point of this experiment?
The purpose of this experiment is to examine the decision-making process when facing a decision that involves risk vs. a guaranteed outcome and explores how framing influences a decision (MingTap, 2014). It exhibits that we do process differently for risky decisions and are affected by our choices being framed in terms gains or losses (Goldstein, 2019).
● What is the relevance of the Wason Selection task and Risky Decisions for financial decisions?
The Wason Selection and Risky Decisions lab are relevant to our everyday lives, especially for making financial decisions that are a critical part of successful functioning. Having insight into our decision-making process and understanding how we are influenced by emotion, context, and framing can help us make more informed and responsible decisions. Wason emphasizes conditional reasoning and logic, and how it may be difficult to apply these for abstract concepts (Goldstein, 2019). Although monetary situations are real-life, many investment options or portfolio choices can be complicated to understand, making it more difficult to apply logic and reasoning. The Risky Decisions lab is extremely important to understand how we process risky decisions and risk aversion. Many factors play a role in these choices, such as emotions and framing, which neuroeconomics is currently investigating. Being aware of these factors, their effects, and our own tendencies when facing uncertain outcomes, allows us to make more informed, responsible, logical choices and hopefully avoid significant negative consequences.
References –
Goldstein, B. E. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.). Cengage.
MindTap - Cengage Learning. (2014). Ng.cengage.com; Cengage Learning. https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5868562500252548489124156979&eISBN=9781337408301&id=2075336089&snapshotId=3952969&