Description- and experience-based choice: does equivalent information equal equivalent choice?

Does the manner in which people acquire information affect their choices? Recent research has contrasted choices based on summary descriptions (e.g. a 100% chance of $3 vs. an 80% chance of $4) with those based on the 'experience' of drawing samples from environments that do (or should) match those provided by descriptions. Intriguingly, decision-makers' preferences differ markedly across the two formats: the so-called description-experience "gap" - but debate over the cause of this gap continues. We employed novel techniques to ensure strict control over both external and internal biases in the samples of information that people used to make decisions from experience. In line with some other recent research, we found a much diminished gap in both experiments suggesting that the divergence in choices based on description and sequentially acquired (non-consequential) samples is largely the result of non-equivalent information at the point of choice. The implications for models of risky choice are discussed.