Choosing the Devil You Don’t Know: Evidence for Limited Sensitivity to Sample Size–Based Uncertainty When It Offers an Advantage

Florian L. Kutzner (), Daniel Read (), Neil Stewart () and Gordon Brown ()
Additional contact information
Florian L. Kutzner: Department of Psychology, Heidelberg University, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany; Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, Coventry CV4 7AL United Kingdom
Daniel Read: Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
Neil Stewart: Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
Gordon Brown: Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom

Management Science, 2017, vol. 63, issue 5, 1519-1528

Abstract: Many decision makers seek to optimize choices between uncertain options such as strategies, employees, or products. When performance targets must be met, attending to observed past performance is not enough to optimize choices—option uncertainty must also be considered. For example, for stretch targets that exceed observed performance, more uncertain options are often better bets. A significant determinant of option uncertainty is sample size: for a given option, the smaller the sample of information we have about it, the greater the uncertainty. In two studies, choices were made between pairs of uncertain options with the goal of exceeding a specified performance target. Information about the options differed in the size of the sample drawn from them, sample size , and the observed performance of those samples, the proportion of successes or “hits” in the sample. We found people to be sensitive to sample size–based uncertainty only when differences in observed performance were negligible. We conclude that in the presence of performance targets, people largely fail to capitalize on the value advantages of small samples in the presence of stretch targets.

Keywords: optimal foraging theory; small sample advantage; Bayesian rationality; bounded rationality; less-is-more; sampling approach; convexity; expected utility (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2394 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:63:y:2017:i:5:p:1519-1528

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Management Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().