A model of a decision problem frames that problem in three dimensions: sample space, target probability and information structure. Each specific model imposes a specific rational decision. As a result, different models may impose different, even contradictory, rational decisions, creating choice ‘anomalies’ and ‘paradoxes’. So, decision making in real-life situations is different from decision making in an experiment. An experiment is a designed setting according to an experimenter’s model of the decision problem, while for a real-life situation it is not always obvious what the design is. A subject in an experiment may initially have a different model of the task than the experimenter and thus possibly make apparently irrational decisions from the experimenter’s model perspective. As a consequence a choice anomaly can be eliminated by learning what the experiment’s model is.
Adair JG ( 1984) The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology69: 334-345.
2.
Adair JG ( 1991) Social cognition, artifact and the passing of the so-called crisis in social psychology. Canadian Psychology32: 445-450.
3.
Bar-Hillel M. and Falk R. ( 1982) Some teasers concerning conditional probabilities . Cognition11: 109-122.
4.
Barbeau E. ( 1991) Fallacies, flaws, and flimflam. The College Mathematics Journal22: 307-310.
5.
Barbeau E. ( 1993) Fallacies, flaws, and flimflam. The College Mathematics Journal24: 149-154.
6.
Bohl AH, Liberatore MJ and Nydick RL ( 1995) A tale of two goats … and a car, or the importance of assumptions in problem solutions. Journal of Recreational Mathematics27: 1-9.
7.
Boumans M. ( 2008) Battle in the planning office: field experts versus normative statisticians. Social Epistemology22: 389-404.
8.
Camerer C. ( 1995) Individual decision making. In: Kagel JH and Roth AE (Eds.). The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pp. 587-703. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
9.
Casscells W., Schoenberger A. and Graboys T. ( 1978) Interpretation by physicians of clinical laboratory results . New England Journal of Medicine299: 999-1000.
10.
Chun YH ( 1999) On the information economics approach to the generalized game show problem. The American Statistician53: 43-51.
11.
Eddy DM ( 1982) Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: problems and opportunities. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A (Eds.). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 249-267. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
12.
Friedman D. ( 1998) Monty Hall’s three doors: Construction and deconstruction of a choice anomaly. The American Economic Review88: 933-946.
13.
Gardner M. ( 1959) Mathematical games. Problems involving questions of probability and ambiguity. Scientific American201: 174, 176, 178, 180, 182.
14.
Gillman L. ( 1992) The car and the goats. American Mathematical Monthly99: 3-7.
15.
Granberg D. and Brown TA ( 1995) The Monty Hall dilemma. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin21: 711-723.
16.
Kluger B. and Friedman D. ( 2006) Financial engineering and rationality: Experimental evidence based on the Monty Hall problem. LabSi Working paper7/2006.
17.
Larkey PD, Smith RA and Kadane JB ( 1989) It’s okay to believe in the ‘Hot Hand’ . Chance2: 22-30.
18.
Morgan JP, Chaganty NR, Dahiya RC and Doviak MJ ( 1991a) Let’s make a deal: The player’s dilemma . The American Statistician45: 284-287.
19.
Morgan JP, Chaganty NR, Dahiya RC and Doviak MJ ( 1991b) Rejoinder to vos Savant. The American Statistician45: 347-348.
20.
Mosteller F. ( 1987) Fifty Challenging Problems in Probability with Solutions . New York: Dover.
21.
Nalebuff B. ( 1987) Puzzles. Choose a curtain, duel-ity, two point conversions, and more. Journal of Economic Perspectives1: 157-163.
22.
Orne MT ( 1973) Communication by the total experimental situation: Why it is important, how it is evaluated, and its significance for the ecological validity of findings. In: Pliner P, Krames L and Alloway T (Eds.). Communication and Affect, pp. 157-191. New York: Academic Press.
23.
Pauker SG and Kassirer JP ( 1980) The threshold approach to clinical decision making . The New England Journal of Medicine302: 1109-1117.
24.
Rao VVB and Rao MB ( 1992) A three-door game show and some of its variants . Mathematical Scientist17: 89-94.
25.
Scherokman B. ( 1997) Selecting and interpreting diagnostic tests. The Permanente Journal, http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/fall97pj/tests.html .
26.
Selvin S. ( 1975) A problem in probability. The American Statistician29: 67.
27.
Tierney J. ( 1991) Behind Monty Hall’s doors: Puzzle, debate and answer?The New York Times, July 21: 1, 20.
28.
vos Savant M. ( 1990) Ask Marilyn. Parade Magazine , September 9: 13.
29.
vos Savant, M. ( 1991) Marilyn vos Savant’s reply. The American Statistician45: 347.
30.
Tversky A. and Gilovich T. ( 1989) The cold facts about the ‘hot hand’ in basketball . Chance2: 16-21
31.
Wendell JP ( 1992) Comment. The American Statistician46: 242.
