# Probability Weighting in Choice under Risk: An Empirical Test

Article

- 227 Downloads
- 21 Citations

## Abstract

This paper reports a violation of rank-dependent utility with inverse S-shaped probability weighting for binary gambles. The paper starts with a violation of expected utility theory: one-stage gambles elicit systematically different utilities than theoretically equivalent two-stage gambles. This systematic disparity does not disappear, but becomes more pronounced after correction for inverse S-shaped probability weighting. The data are also inconsistent with configural weight theory and Machina's fanning out hypothesis. Possible explanations for the data are loss aversion and anchoring and insufficient adjustment.

nonexpected utility probability weighting health

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Abdellaoui, M. (2000). “Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utilities and Probability Weighting Functions,”
*Management Science*46, 1497–1512.Google Scholar - Allais, M. (1979). “The So-Called Allais Paradox and Rational Decisions under Uncertainty.” In M. Allais and O. Hagen (eds.),
*Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox*. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M. H. and W. R. McIntosh. (1996). “Violations of Branch Independence in Choices between Gambles,”
*Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes*67, 91–110.Google Scholar - Birnbaum, M. H. and J. B. Navarrete. (1998). “Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence,”
*Journal of Riskand Uncertainty*17, 49–78.Google Scholar - Bleichrodt, H. and J.-L. Pinto. (2000). “A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis,”
*Management Science*46, 1485–1496.Google Scholar - Bleichrodt, H., J. van Rijn, and M. Johannesson. (1999). “Probability Weighting and Utility Curvature in QALY Based Decision Making,”
*Journal of Mathematical Psychology*43, 238–260.Google Scholar - Camerer, C. F. and T.-H. Ho. (1994). “Nonlinear Weighting of Probabilities and Violations of the Betweenness Axiom,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*8, 167–196.Google Scholar - Dubourg, W. R., M. W. Jones-Lee, and G. Loomes. (1994). “Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity,”
*Journal of Riskand Uncertainty*9, 115–133.Google Scholar - The EuroQol Group. (1990). “EuroQol: A New Facility for the Measurement of Health Related Quality of Life,”
*Health Policy*16, 199–208.Google Scholar - Farquhar, P. (1984). “Utility Assessment Methods,”
*Management Science*30, 1283–1300.Google Scholar - Fellner, W. (1961). “Distortion of Subjective Probabilities as a Reaction to Uncertainty,”
*Quarterly Journal of Economics*75, 670–689.Google Scholar - Gonzalez, R. and G. Wu. (1999). “On the Form of the Probability Weighting Function,”
*Cognitive Psychology*38, 129–166.Google Scholar - Hershey, J. C. and P. J. H. Schoemaker. (1985). “Probability versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?”
*Management Science*31, 1213–1231.Google Scholar - Jensen, N. E. (1967). “An Introduction to Bernoullian Utility Theory: I. Utility Functions,”
*Scandinavian Journal of Economics*69, 163–183.Google Scholar - Johnson, E. J. and D. A. Schkade. (1989). “Bias in Utility Assessments: Further Evidence and Explanations,”
*Management Science*35, 406–424.Google Scholar - Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. (1979). “ Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,”
*Econometrica*47, 263–291.Google Scholar - Karmarkar, U. A. (1974). “The Effect of Probabilities on the Subjective Evaluation of Lotteries,” MIT Working Paper No. 698–74, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Karmarkar, U. A. (1978). “Subjectively Weighted Utility: A Descriptive Extension of the Expected Utility Model,”
*Organizational Behavior and Human Performance*21, 61–72.Google Scholar - Lattimore, P. M., J. R. Baker, and A. D. Witte. (1992). “The Influence of Probability on Risky Choice,”
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*17, 377–400.Google Scholar - Llewellyn-Thomas, H., H. J. Sutherland, R. Tibshirani, A. Ciampi, J. E. Till, and N. F. Boyd. (1982). “The Measurement of Patients’ Values in Medicine,”
*Medical Decision Making*2, 449–462.Google Scholar - Luce, R. D. (2000).
*Utility of Gains and Losses: Measurement-Theoretical and Experimental Approaches*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar - Machina, M. (1982). “ 'Expected Utility’ Analysis without the Independence Axiom,”
*Econometrica*50, 277–323.Google Scholar - Machina, M. (1983). “Generalized Expected Utility Analysis and the Nature of Observed Violations of the Independence Axiom.” In B. P. Stigum and F. Wenstop (eds.),
*Foundations of Utility and RiskTheory with Applications*. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar - Machina, M. (1987). “Choice Under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved,”
*Journal of Economic Perspectives*1, 121–154.Google Scholar - McCord, M. R. and R. de Neufville. (1983). “Empirical Demonstration that Expected Utility Decision Analysis Is Not Operational.” In B. P. Stigum and F. Wenstop (eds.),
*Foundations of Utility and RiskTheory with Applications*. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar - McCord, M. R. and R. de Neufville. (1984). “Utility Dependence on Probability: An Empirical Demonstration,”
*Journal of Large Scale Systems*6, 91–103.Google Scholar - Prelec, D. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function,”
*Econometrica*66, 497–528.Google Scholar - Quiggin, J. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,”
*Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization*3, 323–343.Google Scholar - Rutten-van Mölken, M. P., C. H. Bakker, E. K. A. van Doorslaer, and S. van der Linden. (1995). “Methodological Issues of Patient Utility Measurement. Experience from Two Clinical Trials,”
*Medical Care*33, 922–937.Google Scholar - Tversky, A. and C. Fox. (1995). “Weighting Risk and Uncertainty,”
*Psychological Review*102, 269–283.Google Scholar - Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,”
*Journal of Riskand Uncertainty*5, 297–323.Google Scholar - Tversky, A. S. Sattath, and P. Slovic. (1988). “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”
*Psychological Review*95, 371–384.Google Scholar - Wakker, P. P., I. Erev, and E. U. Weber. (1994). ”Comonotonic Independence: The Critical Test between Classical and Rank-Dependent Utility,”
*Journal of Riskand Uncertainty*9, 195–230.Google Scholar - Wakker, P. P. and A. M. Stiggelbout. (1995). “Explaining Distortions in Utility Elicitation Through the Rank-Dependent Model for Risky Choices,”
*Medical Decision Making*15, 180–186.Google Scholar - Wu, G. (1994). “An Empirical Test of Ordinal Independence,”
*Journal of Risk and Uncertainty*9, 39–60.Google Scholar - Wu, G. and R. Gonzalez. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,”
*Management Science*42, 1676–1690.Google Scholar - Yaari, M. E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk,”
*Econometrica*55, 95–115.Google Scholar

## Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001