Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 161–187 | Cite as

Parametric preference functionals under risk in the gain domain: A Bayesian analysis

Article
First Online:

Abstract

The performance of rank dependent preference functionals under risk is comprehensively evaluated using Bayesian model averaging. Model comparisons are made at three levels of heterogeneity plus three ways of linking deterministic and stochastic models: differences in utilities, differences in certainty equivalents and contextual utility. Overall, the “best model”, which is conditional on the form of heterogeneity, is a form of Rank Dependent Utility or Prospect Theory that captures most behaviour at the representative agent and individual level. However, the curvature of the probability weighting function for many individuals is S-shaped, or ostensibly concave or convex rather than the inverse S-shape commonly employed. Also contextual utility is broadly supported across all levels of heterogeneity. Finally, the Priority Heuristic model is estimated within a stochastic framework, and allowing for endogenous thresholds does improve model performance although it does not compete well with the other specifications considered.

Keywords

Risk Prospect theory Rank dependent utility Bayesian model averaging Contextual utility 

JEL Classifications

C11 C52 D81 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

11166_2015_9213_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (87 kb)
(PDF 86.7 KB)

References

  1. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M.I., & Rutström, E. (2008). Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica, 76(3), 583–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. (2010). Behavioral econometrics for psychologists. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, D.K. (1998). Hypothesis Testing with a restricted parameter space. Journal of Econometrics, 84, 155–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrieu, C., & Thoms, J. (2008). A tutorial on adaptive MCMC. Statistical Computation, 18, 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barberis, N.C. (2013). Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, M. H. (2006). Evidence against prospect theories in gambles with positive, negative, and mixed consequences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, 737–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, M. H. (2008). Evaluation of the priority heuristic as a descriptive model of risky decision making: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review, 115(1), 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, M. H., & Chavez, A. (1997). Tests of theories of decision-making: Violations of branch independence and distribution independence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booij, A.S., van Praag, B.M.S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2010). A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population. Theory and Decision, 68, 115–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: Making choices without trade-offs. Psychological Review, 113(2), 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2008). Risky choice with heuristics reply to Birnbaum (2008) Johnson Schulte-Mecklenbeck and Willemsen (2008) and Rieger and Wang (2008). Psychological Review, 115(1), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality: uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conte, A., Hey, J.D., & Moffat, J. (2011). Mixture models of choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, J.C., & Sadiraj, V. (2006). Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games and Economic Behaviour, 56, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, J.C., Sadiraj, V., Vogt, B., & Dasgupta, U. (2013). Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A Dual Calibration Critique. Economic Theory, 53 (2), 305–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiedler, S., & Glöckner, A. (2012). The dynamics of decision making in risky choice: an eye-tracking analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2012). Probability and risk: foundations and economic implications of probability-dependent risk preferences. Annual Review of Economics, 4(1), 567–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandez, C., Ley, E., & Steel, M.F. (2001). Benchmark priors for Bayesian model averaging. Journal of Econometrics, 100, 381–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Findley, D.F. (1990). Making difficult model comparisons, Bureau of the Census Statistical Research Division Report Series, SRD Research Report Number: CENSUS/SRD/RR-90/11.Google Scholar
  20. Gelfand, A., & Dey, D. (1994). Bayesian model choice: asymptotics and exact calculations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 56, 501–504.Google Scholar
  21. Green, P.J. (1995). Reversible jump Markov chain Monte Carlo computation and Bayesian model determination. Biometrika, 82(4), 711–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein, W. M., & Einhom, H. J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94(2), 236–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harless, D.W., & Camerer, C.F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62(6), 1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison, G.W., Humphrey, S.J., & Verschoor, A. (2010). Choice under uncertainty: evidence from Ethiopia, India and Uganda. Economic Journal, 120, 80–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison, G.W., & Rutström, E. (2009). Expected utility and prospect theory: one wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics, 12(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hey, J. D., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ingersoll, J. (2008). Non-monotonicity of the Tversky-Kahneman probability-weighting function: a cautionary note. European Financial Management, 14(3), 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koop, G. (2003). Bayesian econometrics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Nilsson, H., Rieskampa, J., & Wagenmakers, E.J (2011). Hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation for cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 55, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pesaran, M. H., & Weeks, M. (2007). Nonnested hypothesis testing: an overview. In Baltagi, B.H. (Ed.) A Companion to Theoretical Econometrics. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rabin, M., & Thaler, R. H. (2001). Anomalies risk aversion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(1), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sala-i-Martin, X., Doppelhofer, G., & Miller, R. (2004). Determinants of long-term growth: a Bayesian averaging of classical estimates (BACE) approach. American Economic Review, 94, 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shleifer, A. (2012). Psychologists at the gate: a review of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stott, H.P. (2006). Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32, 101–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representations of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vuong, Q.H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wakker, P.P. (2010). Prospect theory: for risk and ambiguity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilcox, N.T. (2011). Stochastically more risk averse: A contextual theory of stochastic discrete choice under risk. Journal of Econometrics, 162, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ReadingReadingUK
  2. 2.School of EconomicsUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations