Abstract
These experiments are concerned with individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty. By exploiting the ‘isolation effect’ the experiments were able to offer to 134 subjects the possibility of actually gaining or losing an important sum of money.
The experimental data show that under risk as well as under complete ignorance the subjects' attitudes towards prospects of gains and towards prospects of losses are totally unrelated.
The data also show that when facing prospects of gains, the subjects generally take the exact probabilities of the events into account, whereas, when facing prospects of losses many of then have only recourse to coarser categories of plausibility, or even no longer use their information at all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allais M., 1952: ‘The foundations of a positive theory of choice involving risk and a criticism of the postulate and axioms of the American School’ (From 1952, French version). In Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. Allais and Hagen Eds., D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979.
Cohen M. and Jaffray J. Y., 1981: ‘Experimental results on decision making under uncertainty’. Methods of Operations Research Proceedings, 44.
Cohen M., Jaffray J. Y. and Said T., 1983: ‘Comparaison expérimentale et comportements individuels dans le risque et dans l'incertain pour des gains et pour des pertes’. Bulletin de Mathématiques Economiques, No. 18.
De Neufville R. and McCord M., 1982: ‘Fundamental deficiency of expected utility decisions analysis’, F.U.R.T. 82.
Ellsberg D., 1961: ‘Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms.’ Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75.
Fishburn P. C. and Kochenberger G. A., 1980: ‘Two-piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions.’ Decision Sciences, 10, No. 4.
Friedman M. and Savage L. J., 1948: ‘The utility analysis of choices involving risk’. Journal of Political Economy, 56.
Hershey J. and Schoemaker P., 1980: ‘Prospect theory's reflection hypothesis: A critical examination’. Organizational behavior and Human Performances, 25.
Hershey J., Kunreuther H. and Schoemaker P., 1982: ‘Source of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions’. Management Science, 23, No. 8.
Hogarth R. and Makridakis S., 1981: ‘Forecasting and planning: An evaluation’. Management Science, 27, No. 2.
Kahneman D. and Tversky A., 1979: ‘Prospect Theory: an analysis of decision under risk’. Econometrica, 47, No. 2.
Karmarkar U. S., 1978: ‘Subjectively weighted utility: a descriptive extension of the expected utility model’. Organizational Behavior and Human Performances, 21.
Kunreuther H., 1976: ‘Limited knowledge and insurance protection’. Public Policy, 24, No. 2.
Luce R. D. and Raīffa H., 1957: Games and Decisions, Wiley, New York.
MacCrimmon K. R. and Larsson S., 1979: ‘Utility theory: axioms versus “Paradoxes”.’ In: Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox. M. Allais and D. Hagen Eds. D. Reidel, Dordrecht.
Markowitz H. 1952: ‘The utility of wealth’. Journal of Political Economy, 60, No. 2.
Savage L. J., 1954: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York.
Schoemaker P. J., 1980: Experiments on Decisions Under Risk: The Expected Utility Hypothesis. Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston.
Slovic, P., 1969: ‘Differential effects of real versus hypothetical payoffs on choices among gambles’. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79.
Wald A., 1971: Statistical Decision Functions. Chelsea Publishing Company, Bronx, New York.
Yaari M. E., 1965: ‘Convexity in the theory of choice under risk’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 79.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cohen, M., Jaffray, J.Y. & Said, T. Individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty: An experimental study. Theor Decis 18, 203–228 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134074
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134074