Theory and Decision

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Subjective Probability Weighting and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis

Open Access


Numerous studies have convincingly shown that prospect theory can better describe risky choice behavior than the classical expected utility model because it makes the plausible assumption that risk aversion is driven not only by the degree of sensitivity toward outcomes, but also by the degree of sensitivity toward probabilities. This article presents the results of an experiment aimed at testing whether agents become more sensitive toward probabilities over time when they repeatedly face similar decisions, receive feedback on the consequences of their decisions, and are given ample incentives to reflect on their decisions, as predicted by Plott’s Discovered Preference Hypothesis (DPH). The results of a laboratory experiment with N = 62 participants support this hypothesis. The elicited subjective probability weighting function converges significantly toward linearity when respondents are asked to make repeated choices and are given direct feedback after each choice. Such convergence to linearity is absent in an experimental treatment where respondents are asked to make repeated choices but do not experience the resolution of risk directly after each choice, as predicted by the DPH.


learning probability weighting rational choice nonexpected utility 

JEL Classification

D81 D83 


  1. Abdellaoui M. (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions. Management Science 46: 1497–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais, M. (1953), Fondements d’une Théorie Positive des Choix Comportant un Risque et Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Econométrie) 40, 257–332. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Translated into English, with additions, as The Foundations of a Positive Theory of Choice Involving Risk and a Criticism of the Postulates and Axioms of the American School, in Allais, M. and Hagen, O. (1979, eds), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands pp. 27–145.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman I.J., Munro A., Rhodes B., Starmer C. and Sugden R. (1997) A test of the theory of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:479–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binmore K.G. (1999) Why experiments in economics?. Economic Journal 109: F16–F24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleichrodt H., Pinto J.L. (2000) A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science 46:1485–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga J., Starmer C. (2005) Preference anomalies. preference elicitation, and the discovered preference hypothesis. Environmental and Resource Economics 32:55–89Google Scholar
  7. Camerer C.F. (1995) Individual decision making. In: Kagel J.H., Roth A.E. (eds). Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press Princeton, New York, pp 587–703Google Scholar
  8. Coursey D.L., Hovis J.L., Schulze W.D. (1987) The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102:679–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox J.C., Grether D.M. (1996), The preference reversal phenomenon: response mode, markets and incentives. Economic Theory 7:381–405Google Scholar
  10. Cubitt R.P., Starmer C., Sugden R. (1998) On the validity of the random lottery incentive system. Experimental Economics 1:115–131Google Scholar
  11. Cubitt R.P., Starmer C., Sugden R. (2001) Discovered preferences and the experimental evidence of violations of expected utility theory. Journal of Economic Methodology 8:385–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonzalez R., Wu G. (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology 38:129–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison G.W. (1986) An experimental test for risk aversion. Economic Letters 21:7–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison G.W., Lau M.I. Williams M.B. (2002), Estimating individual discount rates in Denmark: a field experiment. American Economic Review 92:1606–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holt C.A., Laury S.K. (2002) Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. American Economic Review 92:1644–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (1996), Comments on Plott’s rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the discovered preference Hypothesis, in Arrow K., Colombatto E., Perleman M. and Schmidt, C. (eds.), Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, pp. 251–254.Google Scholar
  17. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. (1990), Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98:1325–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knetsch J.L., Sinden J.A. (1984), Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics 99:507–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loewenstein G.F. (1999) Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. Economic Journal 109: F25–F34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lichtenstein S., Slovic P. (1971) Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. List J.A. (2004) Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica 72:615–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindman H.R. (1971) Inconsistent preferences among gambles. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCord M.R., de Neufville R. (1986), Lottery equivalents: reduction of the certainty effect problem in utility assessment. Management Science 32:56–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Myagkov M.G., Plott C.R. (1997), Exchange economies and loss exposure: experiments exploring prospect theory and competitive equilibria in market environments. American Economic Review 87:801–828Google Scholar
  26. Plott, C.R. (1996), Rational individual behavior in markets and social choice processes: the Discovered Preference Hypothesis, in Arrow, K., Colombatto, E., Perleman, M. and Schmidt, C., (eds.), Rational Foundations of Economic Behavior, Macmillan and St. Martins London, pp. 225–250.Google Scholar
  27. Plott C.R., Zeiler K. (2005), The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the endowment effect, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review 95:530–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shogren J.F., Shin Seung Y., Hayes, Dermot, J. and Kliebenstein, J., Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept, American Economic Review 84, 255–270.Google Scholar
  29. Slovic P. (1995) The construction of preferences. American Psychologist 50:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith V.L. (1989) Theory, experiments and economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 3:151–169Google Scholar
  31. Starmer C. (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature 38:332–382Google Scholar
  32. Starmer C., Sugden R. (1991), Does the random-lottery incentive system elicit true preferences? an experimental investigation. American Economic Review 81:971–978Google Scholar
  33. Thaler R.H., Johnson E.J. (1990), Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science 36:643–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van de Kuilen G., Wakker P.P. (2006), Learning in the Allais paradox. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 33:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van de Kuilen G., Wakker P.P., Zou L. (2007) A Midpoint Technique for Easily Measuring Prospect Theory’s Probability Weighting. CREED, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  37. Wakker P.P., Deneffe D. (1996), Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science 42:1131–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations