Prospect Theory, Mental Accounting, and Differences in Aggregated and Segregated Evaluation of Lottery Portfolios
AbstractIf individuals have to evaluate a sequence of lotteries, their judgment is influenced by the presentation mode. Experimental studies have found significantly higher acceptance rates for a sequence of lotteries if the overall distribution was displayed instead of the set of lotteries itself. Mental accounting and loss aversion provide an easy and intuitive explanation for this phenomenon. In this paper we offer an explanation that incorporates further evaluation concepts of Prospect Theory. Our formal analysis of the difference in aggregated and segregated portfolio evaluation demonstrates that the higher attractiveness of the aggregated presentation mode is not a general phenomenon (as suggested in the literature) but depends on specific parameters of the lotteries. The theoretical findings are supported by an experimental study. In contrast to the existing evidence and in line with our theoretical results, we find for specific types of lotteries an even lower acceptance rate if the overall distribution is displayed.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.
Volume (Year): 47 (2001)
Issue (Month): 5 (May)
Prospect Theory; Mental Accounting; Evaluation Procedures;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Langer, Thomas & Weber, Martin, 2005. "Myopic prospect theory vs. myopic loss aversion: how general is the phenomenon?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 25-38, January.
- Daniel L. McFadden, 2013. "The New Science of Pleasure," NBER Working Papers 18687, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steul, Martina, 2006. "Does the framing of investment portfolios influence risk-taking behavior? Some experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 557-570, August.
- Michael L. DeKay & John C. Hershey & Mark D. Spranca, & Peter A. Ubel & David A. Asch, 2006. "Are medical treatments for individuals and groups like single-play and multiple-play gambles?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 134-145, November.
- Uri Gneezy & Arie Kapteyn & Jan Potters, 2002.
"Evaluation Periods and Assett Prices in a Market Experiment,"
02-02, RAND Corporation Publications Department.
- Uri Gneezy & Arie Kapteyn & Jan Potters, 2003. "Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(2), pages 821-838, 04.
- Gneezy, U. & Kapteyn, A. & Potters, J.J.M., 2002. "Evaluation Periods and Asset Prices in a Market Experiment," Discussion Paper 2002-8, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Alexander Klos, 2013. "Myopic loss aversion: Potential causes of replication failures," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 617-629, September.
- Peter Wakker & Danielle Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The effects of statistical information on risk ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions," Natural Field Experiments 00338, The Field Experiments Website.
- Levy, Haim & Levy, Moshe, 2009. "The safety first expected utility model: Experimental evidence and economic implications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1494-1506, August.
- Kaufmann, Christine & Weber, Martin, 2013. "Sometimes less is more – The influence of information aggregation on investment decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-33.
- Venkatraman, Srinivasan & Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D., 2006. "Multiple prospect framing and decision behavior: The mediational roles of perceived riskiness and perceived ambiguity," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-73, September.
- Hardin, Andrew M. & Looney, Clayton Arlen, 2012. "Myopic loss aversion: Demystifying the key factors influencing decision problem framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 311-331.
- Keith Blackburn & David Chivers, 2013. "Fearing the Worst: The Importance of Uncertainty for Inequality," Centre for Growth and Business Cycle Research Discussion Paper Series 182, Economics, The Univeristy of Manchester.
- Aloysius, John A., 2005. "Ambiguity aversion and the equity premium puzzle: A re-examination of experimental data on repeated gambles," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 635-655, October.
- Kyle, Albert S. & Ou-Yang, Hui & Xiong, Wei, 2006. "Prospect theory and liquidation decisions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 273-288, July.
- Karasakal, Esra Koktener & Michalowski, Wojtek, 2003. "Incorporating wealth information into a multiple criteria decision making model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(1), pages 204-219, October.
- Stefan Zeisberger & Thomas Langer & Martin Weber, 2012. "Why does myopia decrease the willingness to invest? Is it myopic loss aversion or myopic loss probability aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 35-50, January.
- Marx, Axel & Peeters, Hans, 2008. "An unconditional basic income and labor supply: Results from a pilot study of lottery winners," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1636-1659, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.