×

A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. (English) Zbl 1151.91426

Summary: This paper provides an efficient method to measure utility under prospect theory. Our method minimizes both the number of elicitations required to measure utility and the cognitive burden for subjects, being based on the elicitation of certainty equivalents for two-outcome prospects. We applied our method in an experiment and were able to replicate the main findings on prospect theory, suggesting that our method measures what it is intended to. Our data confirmed empirically that risk seeking and concave utility can coincide under prospect theory. Utility did not depend on the probability used in the elicitation, which offers support for the validity of prospect theory.

MSC:

91B16 Utility theory
91A90 Experimental studies
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] Abdellaoui, Mohammed. (2000). ”Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions,” Management Science 46, 1497–1512. · Zbl 1232.91114
[2] Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Aurélien Baillon, and Peter P. Wakker. (2007). ”Combining Bayesian Beliefs and Willingness to Bet to Analyze Attitudes towards Uncertainty,” Working Paper, Erasmus University.
[3] Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Carolina Barrios, and Peter P. Wakker. (2007). ”Reconciling Introspective Utility with Revealed Preference: Experimental Arguments Based on Prospect Theory,” Journal of Econometrics 138, 356–378. · Zbl 1420.91070
[4] Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Han Bleichrodt, and Corina Paraschiv. (2007). ”Measuring Loss Aversion under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Approach,” Management Science 53, 1659–1674.
[5] Andersen, Steffen, Glenn Harrison, Morten Lau, and E. Elisabet Rutström. (2007). ”Behavioral Econometrics for Psychologists,” Journal of Economic Psychology (forthcoming).
[6] Baucells, Manel and Antonio Villasis. (2006). ”Stability of Risk Preferences and the Reflection Effect of Prospect Theory,” Working Paper, IESE. · Zbl 1197.91087
[7] Beattie, Jane, and Graham Loomes. (1997). ”The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 155–168. · Zbl 0886.90051
[8] Benartzi, Shlomo, and Richard H. Thaler. (1995). ”Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110, 73–92. · Zbl 0829.90040
[9] Bleichrodt, Han, and Jose L. Pinto. (2000). ”A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis,” Management Science 46, 1485–1496. · Zbl 06007244
[10] Bleichrodt, Han, Jose L. Pinto, and Peter P. Wakker. (2001). ”Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility,” Management Science 47, 1498–1514. · Zbl 1232.91212
[11] Booij, Adam S. and Gijs van de Kuilen. (2007). ”A Parameter-Free Analysis of the Utility of Money for the General Population under Prospect Theory,” Working Paper, University of Amsterdam.
[12] Bostic, Raphael, R. J. Herrnstein, and R. Duncan Luce. (1990). ”The Effect on the Preference Reversal of Using Choice Indifferences,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 13, 193–212.
[13] Camerer, Colin F., and Robin M. Hogarth. (1999). ”The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital–Labor–Production Framework,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7–42. · Zbl 0942.91041
[14] Chateauneuf, Alain, and Michèle Cohen. (1994). ”Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-Expected Utility Model,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 77–91. · Zbl 0810.90006
[15] Cubitt, Robin, Chris Starmer, and Robert Sugden. (1998). ”On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System,” Experimental Economics 1, 115–131. · Zbl 0928.91016
[16] Diecidue, Enrico, and Wakker, Peter P. (2001). ”On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer 23(3), 281–298. · Zbl 1059.91017
[17] Etchart-Vincent, Nathalie and Olivier l’Haridon. (2008). ”Monetary Incentives in the Loss Domain: An Experimental Comparison of Three Rewarding Schemes Including Real Losses,” Working Paper, HEC Business School.
[18] Farquhar, Peter. (1984). ”Utility Assessment Methods,” Management Science 30, 1283–1300. · Zbl 0551.90048
[19] Fennema, Hein, and Marcel van Assen. (1998). ”Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Trade-Off Method,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17, 277–295. · Zbl 0919.90010
[20] Gonzalez, Richard, and George Wu. (1999). ”On the Form of the Probability Weighting Function,” Cognitive Psychology 38, 129–166.
[21] Gul, Faruk. (1991). ”A Theory of Disappointment Aversion,” Econometrica 59, 667–686. · Zbl 0744.90005
[22] Heath, Chip, Steven Huddart, and Mark Lang. (1999). ”Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 601–627.
[23] Hershey, J. C., and Paul J. H. Schoemaker. (1985). ”Probability versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?” Management Science 31, 1213–1231.
[24] Holt, Charles A., and Susan K. Laury. (2002). ”Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects,” American Economic Review 92, 1644–1655.
[25] Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. (1979). ”Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263–291. · Zbl 0411.90012
[26] Köbberling, Veronika, and Peter P. Wakker. (2005). ”An Index of Loss Aversion,” Journal of Economic Theory 122, 119–131. · Zbl 1118.91057
[27] Laughhunn, Dan J., John W. Payne, and Roy Crum. (1980). ”Managerial Risk Preferences for Below-Target Returns,” Management Science 26, 1238–1249.
[28] McCord, Mark, and Richard de Neufville. (1986). ”Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment,” Management Science 32, 56–60. · Zbl 0599.90008
[29] Myagkov, Mikhail, and Charles R. Plott. (1997). ”Exchange Economies and Loss Exposure: Experiments Exploring Prospect Theory and Competitive Equilibria in Market Environments,” American Economic Review 87, 801–828.
[30] Payne, John W., Dan J. Laughhunn, and Roy Crum. (1980). ”Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior,” Management Science 26, 1039–1060.
[31] Payne, John W., Dan J. Laughhunn, and Roy Crum. (1981). ”Further Tests of Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior,” Management Science 27, 953–958.
[32] Rabin, Matthew. (2000). ”Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem,” Econometrica 68, 1281–1292.
[33] Savage, Leonard J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley. · Zbl 0055.12604
[34] Schoemaker, Paul J.H. (1990). ”Are Risk-Attitudes Related Across Domains and Response Modes?” Management Science 36, 1451–1463.
[35] Starmer, Chris. (2000). ”Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk,” Journal of Economic Literature 28, 332–382.
[36] Starmer, Chris, and Robert Sugden. (1991). ”Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation,” American Economic Review 81, 971–978.
[37] Stott, Henry P. (2006). ”Cumulative Prospect Theory’s Functional Menagerie,” The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32, 101–130. · Zbl 1281.91072
[38] Tversky, Amos, and Craig Fox. (1995). ”Weighing Risk and Uncertainty,” Psychological Review 102, 269–283. · Zbl 0836.90004
[39] Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). ”Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323. · Zbl 0775.90106
[40] Viscusi, W. Kip, and William N. Evans. (2006). ”Behavioral Probabilities,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 32, 5–15. · Zbl 1281.91064
[41] Wakker, Peter P., and Daniel Deneffe. (1996). ”Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities when Probabilities Are Distorted or Unkown,” Management Science 42, 1131–1150. · Zbl 0880.90008
[42] Wu, George, and Richard Gonzalez. (1996). ”Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42, 1676–1690. · Zbl 0893.90003
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.