Choice Rationalization or Just Plain Odds?

An interesting NYTimes article talks about the methodological flaw uncovered by Yale's Keith Chen, an economist who wrote a paper on rationalization and choice and challenges the basis for many psychological experiments. Here's an excerpt:

The Monty Hall Problem has struck again, and this time it’s not merely embarrassing mathematicians. If the calculations of a Yale economist are correct, there’s a sneaky logical fallacy in some of the most famous experiments in psychology.

He says researchers have fallen for a version of what mathematicians call the Monty Hall Problem, in honor of the host of the old television show, “Let’s Make a Deal.” Here’s how Monty’s deal works, in the math problem, anyway. (On the real show it was a bit messier.) He shows you three closed doors, with a car behind one and a goat behind each of the others. If you open the one with the car, you win it. You start by picking a door, but before it’s opened Monty will always open another door to reveal a goat. Then he’ll let you open either remaining door.

Suppose you start by picking Door 1, and Monty opens Door 3 to reveal a goat. Now what should you do? Stick with Door 1 or switch to Door 2?

Interestingly enough: Writing extensively on behavioral economics, Chen has done studies using monkeys and monitoring their behavior when it comes to risk-taking and aversion. A few of these articles have appeared in the Economist. I vaguely remembered reading them years ago and was fascinated that there this whole world of behavioral economics. Catch the articles here if you want some cool reads...