Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:20:04.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grappling with Ignorance: Frameworks from Decision Theory, Lessons from Literature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2015

Devjani Roy  and
Richard Zeckhauser
Devjani Roy
Affiliation:
Kennedy School, Harvard University
Richard Zeckhauser*
Affiliation:
Kennedy School, Harvard University, e-mail: richard_zeckhauser@harvard.edu
*
*e-mail: richard_zeckhauser@harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA), a discipline best known for guiding policy choices, can also guide personal decisions. In either application, traditional BCA tallies benefits and costs using market values or willingness to pay. When future outcomes are uncertain, as they are across a wide array of situations, BCA must call as well on the methods of decision analysis. Thus, von Neumann–Morgenstern utilities, subjective probabilities, and sequential decision strategies are brought into play.

Traditional decision analysis distinguishes between risk and uncertainty. With risk, the probabilities of possible outcomes are known; with uncertainty, those outcomes are known, but not their probabilities. We introduce the concept of ignorance: a third, less tractable category. With ignorance, even the possible outcomes of decisions cannot be identified. Ignorance takes particular importance when high payoffs are associated with these unidentified outcomes, as is often the case. We identify such outcomes as consequential amazing developments (CADs). In the policy realm, the 2008 financial meltdown or the Arab Spring would represent a CAD. For an individual, a CAD might be that one’s secure tenured position had been inexplicably terminated, or that one’s trusted business partner had long been shuttling corporate secrets to a competitor. We distinguish between unrecognized and recognized ignorance. In the latter category, we identify specific cognitive biases that impair decision making.

Consequential ignorance cannot be studied in a controlled laboratory setting, since its payoffs are high, its time delays often long, and merely introducing the subject would tend to give away the game. Thus we develop a descriptive understanding of ignorance drawing on great works of literature, from antiquity to the present day, positing that skilled writers understand how humans make decisions and respond to unanticipated outcomes. Shakespearean examples would be Hamlet’s ignorance of his father’s killer, and Macbeth’s lack of awareness of the tragic ramifications following his actions to seize the Scottish crown.

Following this descriptive analysis, we turn to prescription. We draw on decision analysis to develop a formula for calculating consequential ignorance; it incorporates the expected magnitudes and assessed base rates for CADs. Finally, we propose a decision-analytic framework for measured decision making, given ignorance. Our recommended approach explicitly recognizes decision-making costs, and thus proposes when to use quick and intuitive as opposed to more deliberative approaches to decision, or the labels Kahneman has popularized as System 1 and System 2.

Studying ignorance through literature has important implications for BCA. Given the potential for ignorance, there are two key goals for prudent decision making. First, steps should be taken to recognize when ignorance might be present. Second, efforts should be made not to respond in a suboptimal fashion when ignorance is anticipated or when a CAD springs upon us. Great literature can provide the equivalent of widespread life experience, and can help a decision maker reach both goals. At its heart, this essay represents a benefit-cost approach to dealing with ignorance. Numerous connections to BCA are made throughout.

Keywords

D80D03D78D84H43benefit-costCADdecision theoryignorancelessons from literatureSystem 1 and System 2
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2015 , pp. 33 - 65
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, M. H. (1953). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ainslie, G. & Haslam, N. (1992). Hyperbolic Discounting. In Loewenstein, G. & Elster, J. (Eds.), Choice Over Time (pp. 57–92). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Alpert, M. & Raiffa, H. (1982). A Progress Report on the Training of Probability Assessors. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 294–305). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle (1997). Poetics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin; (M. Heath, Trans.).Google Scholar
Austen, J. (2002). Pride and Prejudice. In Irvine, Robert (Ed.), Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.Google Scholar
Beckett, S. (1956). Waiting for Godot. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Bell, D. E. (1982). Regret in Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Operations Research, 30(5), 961–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellamy, C. (2001). The Oxford Companion to Military History. In Holmes, R. (Ed.), Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; (Marshal Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov).Google Scholar
Boyd, B. (2009). On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition and Fiction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brams, S. J. (2003). Biblical Games: Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brams, S. J. (2011). Game Theory and the Humanities: Bridging Two Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brontë, E. (2003). Wuthering Heights. In Newman, Beth (Ed.), Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (2002). Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Christie, A. (1926). The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Christie, A. (1934). Murder on the Orient Express. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Chwe, M. S. (2013). Jane Austen, Game Theorist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dante, A. (1994). The Inferno of Dante: A New Verse Translation. New York: Farrar; (R. Pinsky, Trans.).Google Scholar
Dickens, C. (1970). A Tale of Two Cities. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Dickens, C. (1996). Great Expectations. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Djikic, M., Oatley, K. & Moldoveanu, M. C. (2013). Opening the Closed Mind: The Effect of Exposure to Literature on the Need for Closure. Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 149–154.Google Scholar
Dostoevsky, F. (1989). Crime and Punishment. New York: Norton; (Jessie Senior Coulson, Trans.).Google Scholar
Doyle, A. C. (1993). The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dumas, A. (1995). The Three Musketeers. London: Penguin; (Lord Sudley, Trans.).Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. & Beyth, R. (1975). I Knew It Would Happen: Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
García Márquez, G. (1988). Love in the Time of Cholera. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Goldstein, D. & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75–90.Google Scholar
Gomory, R. (1995). The Known, The Unknown and The Unknowable. Scientific American, 272, 120.Google Scholar
Gross, M. & McGoey, L.(Eds.) (2015). Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Oxford, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hitch, C. J. & McKean, R. N. (1960). The Economics of Defense in the Nuclear Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horace (1926). Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; (H. Rushton Fairclough, Trans.).Google Scholar
Johnson, S. (1752). The Rambler (Vol. 1). London: J. Payne.Google Scholar
Kafka, F. (1992). The Trial. New York: Knopf; (Willa and Edwin Muir, Trans.).Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking. Management Science, 39, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). The Structural Study of Myth. Journal of American Folklore, 68(270), 428–444.Google Scholar
Loomes, G. & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92(386), 805–824.Google Scholar
Mar, R. & Oatley, K. (2008). The Function of Fiction Is the Abstraction and Simulation of Social Experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3), 173–192.Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. (1995). Anticipation and Feeling in Literary Response: A Neuropsychological Perspective. Poetics, 23, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.Google Scholar
Oatley, K., Mar, R. A. & Djikic, M. (2012). The Psychology of Fiction: Present and Future. In Jaen, I. & Simon, J. (Eds.), Cognitive Literary Studies: Current Themes and New Directions (pp. 236–249). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Office of Management and Budget (2003). Guidelines for the Conduct of Regulatory Analysis, OMB Circular A-4. Washington, DC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Patel, J., Zeckhauser, R. & Hendricks, D. (1991). The Rationality Struggle: Illustrations from Financial Markets. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 81(2), 232–236.Google Scholar
Plato (1992). The Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett; (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.).Google Scholar
Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ritov, I. & Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to Vaccinate: Omission Bias and Ambiguity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritov, I. & Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and Omission Biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 49–61.Google Scholar
Rodin, J. (2014). The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Rose, A., Porter, K., Dash, N., Bouabid, J., Huyck, C., Whitehead, J., Shaw, D., Eguchi, R., Taylor, C., McLane, T., Tobin, L. T., Ganderton, P. T., Godschalk, D., Kiremidjian, A. S., Tierney, K. & West, C. T. (2007). Benefit-Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants. Natural Hazards Review, 8(4), 97–111.Google Scholar
Roy, D. & Zeckhauser, R. (2015). The Anatomy of Ignorance: Diagnoses from Literature. In Gross, M. & McGoey, L. (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. Oxford, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Samuelson, W. & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1984). Choice and Consequence: Perspectives of an Errant Economist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1988). The Mind As a Consuming Organ. In Bell, D. E., Raiffa, H. & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions (pp. 343–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, W. (2005). The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sophocles (1982). Three Theban Plays: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin; (R. Fagles, Trans.).Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. & West, R. F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward A Positive Theory of Consumer Choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.Google Scholar
Tolstoy, L. (1996). War and Peace. New York: Norton; (L. and A. Maude, Trans.).Google Scholar
Tolstoy, L. (2004). Anna Karenina. New York: Penguin; (R. Pevear and L. Volokhonsky, Trans.).Google Scholar
Trautmann, S. T. & Zeckhauser, R. (2013). Shunning Uncertainty: The Neglect of Learning Opportunities. Games and Economic Behavior, 79, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. (1996). The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.Google Scholar
Virgil (2007). Aeneid. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; (F. Ahl, Trans.).Google Scholar
Viscusi, W. K. (2014). The Value of Individual and Societal Risks to Life and Health. In Machina, M. J. & Viscusi, W. K. (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty (pp. 385–452). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. & Johnson, E. J. (2008). Decisions Under Uncertainty: Psychological, Economic, and Neuroeconomic Explanations of Risk Preference. In Glimcher, P., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. & Poldrack, R. (Eds.), Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain (pp. 127–144). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Zeckhauser, R. (2006). Investing in the Unknown and Unknowable. Capitalism and Society, 1(2), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar