Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 5–19 | Cite as

It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice

  • John W. Payne
Article

Abstract

Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; $0, .20; −$25, .20; −$50, .20). What happens when the opportunity to improve such a gamble is provided by a manipulation that adds value to one outcome versus another outcome, particularly when the opportunity to add value to one outcome versus another outcome changes the overall probability of a gain or the overall probability of a loss? Such a choice provides a simple test of the expected utility model (EU), original prospect theory (OPT), and cumulative prospect theory (CPT). A study of risky choices involving 375 respondents indicates that respondents were most sensitive to changes in outcome values that either increased the overall probability of a strict gain or decreased the overall probability of a strict loss. These results indicate more support for OPT rather than CPT and EU under various assumptions about the shape of the utility and value and weighting functions. Most importantly, the main difference between the various expectation models of risky choice occurs for outcomes near the reference value. A second study of risky choice involving 151 respondents again demonstrated the sensitivity of subjects to reducing the probability of a strict loss even at the cost of reduced expected value. Consequently, we argue that theories of how people choose among gambles that involve three or more consequences with both gains and losses need to include measures of the overall probabilities of a gain and of a loss.

Keywords

decision risk preference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Camerer, C. F. and R. M. Hogarth. (1999). “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7–42.Google Scholar
  2. Diecidue, E. and P. P. Wakker. (2001). “On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23, 281–298.Google Scholar
  3. Fennema, H. and P. Wakker. (1997). “Original and Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Discussion of Empirical Differences,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10, 53–64.Google Scholar
  4. Fox, C. R. and K. E. See. (2003). “Belief and Preference in Decision Under Uncertainty,” In D. Hardman and L. Macchi (eds.), Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica 47, 263–291.Google Scholar
  6. Levy, M. and H. Levy. (2002). “Prospect Theory: Much ado about nothing?” Management Science 48, 1334–1349.Google Scholar
  7. Langer, T. and M. Weber. (2001). “Prospect theory, mental accounting, and differences in aggregated and segregated evaluation of lottery portfolios,” Management Science 47, 716–733.Google Scholar
  8. Lopes, L. L. (1993). “Reasons and Resources: The Human Side of Risk Taking.” In N. J. Bell and R. W. Bell (eds.), Adolescent Risk Taking. Lubbock, TX: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Lopes. (1995). “Algebra and Process in the Modeling of Risky Choice.” In J. Busemeyer, R. Hastie, and D. L. Medin (eds.), Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lopes, L. L. and G. C. Oden. (1999). “The Role of Aspiration Level in Risky Choice: A Comparison of Cumulative Prospect Theory and SP/A Theory,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 43, 286–313.Google Scholar
  11. Luce, R. D. (2000). Utility for Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches. New York; Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Luce, R. D. and E. U. Weber. (1986). “An Axiomatic Theory of Conjoint, Expected Risk,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology 30, 188–205.Google Scholar
  13. Payne, J. W., D. J. Laughhunn, and R. Crum. (1980). “Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior,”Management Science 26, 1039–1060.Google Scholar
  14. Payne, J. W., D. J. Laughhunn, and R. Crum. (1981). “Further Tests of Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior,” Management Science 27, 953–958.Google Scholar
  15. Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323–343.Google Scholar
  16. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323.Google Scholar
  17. Von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. (1947). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, (2nd edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  18. Weber, E. U., C. Anderson, and M. H. Birnbaum. (1992). “A Theory of Perceived Risk and Attractiveness,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 492–523.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations