Theory and Decision

, Volume 68, Issue 1–2, pp 115–148 | Cite as

A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population

  • Adam S. Booij
  • Bernard M. S. van Praag
  • Gijs van de Kuilen
Open Access
Article

Abstract

This article presents the results of an experiment that completely measures the utility function and probability weighting function for different positive and negative monetary outcomes, using a representative sample of N = 1,935 from the general public. The results confirm earlier findings in the lab, suggesting that utility is less pronounced than what is found in classical measurements where expected utility is assumed. Utility for losses is found to be convex, consistent with diminishing sensitivity, and the obtained loss-aversion coefficient of 1.6 is moderate but in agreement with contemporary evidence. The estimated probability weighting functions have an inverse-S shape and they imply pessimism in both domains. These results show that probability weighting is also an important phenomenon in the general population. Women and lower educated individuals are found to be more risk averse, in agreement with common findings. In contrast to previous studies that ascribed gender differences in risk attitudes solely to differences in the degree utility curvature, however, our results show that this finding is primarily driven by loss aversion and, for women, also by a more pessimistic psychological response toward the probability of obtaining the best possible outcome.

Keywords

Prospect theory Utility for gains and losses Loss aversion Subjective probability weighting 

References

  1. Abdellaoui M. (2000) Parameter-free elicitation of utilities and probability weighting functions. Management Science 46: 1497–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui M., Barrios C., Wakker P.P. (2007) Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: experimental arguments based on prospect theory. Journal of Econometrics 138: 356–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., L’Haridon O. (2008) A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 36: 245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdellaoui M., Bleichrodt H., Paraschiv C. (2007) Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Science 50(10): 1659–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abdellaoui M., Vossmann F., Weber M. (2005) Choice-based elicitation and decomposition of decision weights for gains and losses under uncertainty. Management Science 51: 1384–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allais M. (1953) Le Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Américaine. Econometrica 21: 503–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersen S., Harrison G.W., Lau M.I., Rutström E. (2008) Eliciting risk and time preferences. Econometrica 76(3): 583–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2006). Dynamic choice behaviour: asset integration and natural reference points. Working paper, 06-07, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida. Available at http://www.bus.ucf.edu/wp/Working%20Papers/2006/06-07%20Harrison.pdf.
  9. Barsky R.B., Juster F.T., Kimball M.S., Shapiro M.D. (1997) Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112: 537–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benartzy S., Thaler R.H. (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blake D. (1996) Efficiency, risk aversion and portfolio insurance: an analysis of financial asset portfolios held by investors in the United Kingdom. Economic Journal 106: 1175–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blavatskyy P. (2006) Error propagation in the elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Theory and Decision 60: 315–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blavatskyy P.R. (2007) Stochastic expected utility theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 34: 259–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Bleichrodt H., Pinto J.L. (2002) Loss aversion and scale compatibility in two–attribute trade–offs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 46: 315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Booij, A. S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2007). A parameter–free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. Working paper, Amsterdam School of Economics. Available at http://booij.economists.nl/papers.php.
  17. Byrnes J.P., Miller D.C. (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125(3): 367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Camerer C.F. (2000) Prospect theory in the wild: evidence from the field. In: Kahneman D., Tversky A. (eds) Choices, values and frames.. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 288–300Google Scholar
  19. Camerer C.F., Ho T. (1994) Nonlinear weighting of probabilities and violations of the betweenness axiom. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8: 167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Camerer C.F., Hogarth R.M. (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19: 7–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carbone E., Hey J.D. (2000) Which error story is best? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 20(2): 161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohn R.A., Lewellen W.G., Lease R.C., Schlarbaum G.G. (1975) Individual investor risk aversion and investment portfolio composition. Journal of Finance 30: 605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cox J.C., Sadiraj V. (2006) Small- and large-stakes risk aversion: implications of concavity calibration for decision theory. Games and Economic Behavior 56(1): 45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Currim I.S., Sarin R.K. (1989) Prospect versus utility. Management Science 35: 22–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davidson D., Suppes P., Siegel S. (1957) Decision making: an experimental approach. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2006). Individual risk attitudes: new evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey. CEPR Discussion Papers 5517.Google Scholar
  28. Donkers A.C.D., Melenberg B., van Soest A.H.O. (2001) Estimating risk attitudes using lotteries: a large sample approach. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 22: 165–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Donkers B., van Soest A. (1999) Subjective measures of household preferences and financial decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology 20: 613–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Etchart-Vincent N. (2004) Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28: 217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fehr-Duda H., de Gennaro M., Schubert R. (2006) Gender, financial risk, and probability weights. Theory and Decision 60: 283–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fennema H., van Assen M.A.L.M. (1998) Measuring the utility of losses by means of the tradeoff method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17: 277–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gächter, S. E., Johnson, J., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Working paper, CeDEx discussion paper 2007-02, The University of Nottingham. Available at http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/papers/2007-02.pdf.
  34. Goeree J.K., Holt C.A., Palfrey T.R. (2002) Quantal response equilibrium and overbidding in private-value auctions. Journal of Economic Theory 104: 247–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goette L., Huffman D., Fehr E. (2004) Loss aversion and labour supply. Journal of the European Economic Association 2: 216–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldstein W.M., Einhorn H.J. (1987) Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review 94: 236–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gonzalez R., Wu G. (1999) On the form of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology 38: 129–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guiso, L., & Paiella, M. (2003). Risk aversion, wealth and background risk. Bank of Italy economic working paper no. 483.Google Scholar
  39. Halek M., Eisenhauer J.G. (2001) Demography of risk aversion. Journal of Risk and Insurance 68: 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., Rutström, E. E., & Sullivan, M. B. (2005). Eliciting risk and time preferences using field experiments: some methodological issues. Field experiments in economics (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press (Research in Experimental Economics).Google Scholar
  41. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Risk aversion in the laboratory. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12, pp. 42–196). Bingley, UK: Emerald (Research in experimental economics).Google Scholar
  42. Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2009). Expected utility theory and prospect theory: One wedding and a decent funeral. Experimental Economics 12, forthcoming. Available at http://www.bus.ucf.edu/wp/Working%20Papers/2005/05-18%20Harrison.pdf.
  43. Hartog J., Ferrer-i-Carbonell A., Jonker N. (2002) Linking measured risk aversion to individual characteristics. Kyklos 55: 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hertwig R., Ortmann A. (2001) Experimental practices in economics: a challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 383–403Google Scholar
  45. Hey J.D. (1995) Experimental investigations of errors in decision making under risk. European Economic Review 39(3–4): 633–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hey J.D. (2005) Why we should not be silent about noise. Experimental Economics 8(4): 325–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hey J.D., Orme C. (1994) Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica 62: 1291–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Holt C.A., Laury S.K. (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review 92: 1644–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jullien B., Salanié B. (2000) Estimating preferences under risk: the case of racetrack bettors. Journal of Political Economy 108: 503–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47: 263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Köbberling V., Wakker P.P. (2005) An index of loss aversion. Journal of Economic Theory 122(1): 119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Laury S.K., Holt C.A. (2000) Further reflections on prospect theory. Department of Economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  53. Loomes G., Sugden R. (1995) Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review 39(3/4): 641–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Loomes G., Sugden R. (1998) Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica 65(260): 581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luce R.D. (2000) Utility of gains and losses: Measurement–theoretical and experimental approaches. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. McGlothlin W.H. (1956) Stability of choices among uncertain alternatives. American Journal of Psychology 69: 604–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Murphy K.M., Topel R.H. (1985) Estimation and inference in two-step econometric models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 3(4): 370–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pålsson A. (1996) Does the degree of relative risk aversion vary with household characteristics. Journal of Economic Psychology 17: 771–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prelec D. (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66: 497–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rabin M. (2000) Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: a calibration theorem. Econometrica 68: 1281–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rubinstein A. (2006) Dilemmas of an economic theorist. Econometrica 74: 865–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt U., Traub S. (2002) An experimental test of loss aversion. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 25: 233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Stott H. (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32: 101–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tu, Q. (2005). Empirical analysis of time preferences and risk aversion. CentER PhD Thesis 142, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  66. Tversky A., Fox C.R. (1995) Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review 102: 269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tversky A., Kahneman D. (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5: 297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. van de Kuilen, G., & Wakker, P. P. (2009). The midweight method to measure attitudes towards risk and ambiguity. Working paper, Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam. http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/pdf/wmidpoint.pdf
  69. Von Gaudecker, H. M., van Soest, A., & Wengström, E. (2008). Selection and mode effects in risk preference elicitation. IZA discussion paper 3321. Available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp3321.pdf.
  70. Wakker P.P. (1994) Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory and Decision 36: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wakker, P. P. (2005). Formalizing reference dependence and initial wealth in Rabin’s calibration theorem. Working paper, Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Available at http://people.few.eur.nl/wakker/pdf/calibcsocty05.pdf
  72. Wakker P.P. (2008) Explaining the characteristics of the power (CRRA) utility function. Health Economics 17: 1329–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wakker P.P., Deneffe D. (1996) Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities when probabilities are distorted or unknown. Management Science 42: 1131–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wakker P.P., Köbberling V., Schwieren C. (2007) Prospect-theory’s diminishing sensitivity versus economic’s intrinsic utility of money: How the introduction of the euro can be used to disentangle the two empirically. Theory and Decision 63: 205–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wakker P.P., Thaler R.H., Tversky A. (1997) Probabilistic insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 15: 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wakker P.P., Tversky A. (1993) An axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 7: 147–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilcox, N. T. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: a critical primer and econometric comparison. In J. C. Cox & G. W. Harrison (Eds.), Risk aversion in experiments (Vol. 12, pp. 197–292) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press (Research in Experimental Economics).Google Scholar
  78. Wu G., Gonzalez R. (1996) Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science 42: 1676–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam S. Booij
    • 1
  • Bernard M. S. van Praag
    • 2
  • Gijs van de Kuilen
    • 3
  1. 1.Amsterdam School of EconomicsAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Amsterdam School of Economics, Tinbergen Institute, Cesifo, IZA, DIWAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.TIBER, CentER, Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations