IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rfa/aefjnl/v7y2020i2p33-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk as Challenge: A Dual System Stochastic Model for Binary Choice Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Shye
  • Ido Haber

Abstract

Challenge Theory (CT) is a new approach to decision under risk that departs significantly from expected utility and is based firmly on psychological, rather than economic, assumptions. The paper demonstrates that a purely cognitive-psychological paradigm for decision under risk can yield excellent predictions, comparable to those attained by more complex economic or psychological models that remain attached to conventional economic constructs and assumptions. The study presents a new model for predicting the popularity of choices made in binary risk problems.A CT-based regression model is tested on data gathered from 126 respondents who indicated their preferences with respect to 44 choice problems. Results support CT's central hypothesis, strongly associating between the Challenge Index (CI) attributable to every binary risk problem, and the observed popularity of the bold prospect in that problem (with r=-0.92 and r=-0.93 for gains and for losses, respectively). The novelty of the CT perspective as a new paradigm is illuminated by its simple, single-index (CI) representation of psychological effects proposed by Prospect Theory for describing choice behavior (certainty effect, reflection effect, overweighting small probabilities and loss aversion).

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Shye & Ido Haber, 2020. "Risk as Challenge: A Dual System Stochastic Model for Binary Choice Behavior," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 7(2), pages 33-50, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:rfa:aefjnl:v:7:y:2020:i:2:p:33-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/aef/article/download/4714/4894
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://redfame.com/journal/index.php/aef/article/view/4714
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Powell, Melanie & Ansic, David, 1997. "Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 605-628, November.
    3. Samuel Shye, 1989. "The systemic life quality model: A basis for urban renewal evaluation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 343-378, August.
    4. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    5. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2001. "Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 261-292.
    6. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    7. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samuel Shye & Ido Haber, 2020. "Challenge Theory: The Structure and Measurement of Risky Binary Choice Behavior," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 7(4), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Samuel Shye & Ido Haber, 2020. "Challenge Theory: The Structure and Measurement of Risky Binary Choice Behavior," Papers 2003.12474, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel Shye & Ido Haber, 2019. "Risk as Challenge: A Dual System Stochastic Model for Binary Choice Behavior," Papers 1910.04487, arXiv.org.
    2. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    3. Dacey, Raymond & Gallant, Kenneth S., 1997. "Crime control and harassment of the innocent," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 325-334.
    4. Kuo-Hwa Chang & Michael Nayat Young, 2019. "Portfolios Optimizations of Behavioral Stocks with Perception Probability Weightings," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 20(2), pages 817-845, November.
    5. Andrea Lippi & Laura Barbieri & Mariacristina Piva & Werner De Bondt, 2018. "Time-varying risk behavior and prior investment outcomes: Evidence from Italy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 471-483, September.
    6. Louis Lévy-Garboua, 1999. "Expected Utility and Cognitive Consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-03674666, HAL.
    7. Pavlo R. Blavatskyy, "undated". "A Stochastic Expected Utility Theory," IEW - Working Papers 231, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2012. "Salience Theory of Choice Under Risk," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(3), pages 1243-1285.
    9. Kavitha Ranganathan, 2018. "Does Global Shapes Of Utility Functions Matter For Investment Decisions?," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 341-361, October.
    10. Kremena Bachmann & Thorsten Hens, 2010. "Behavioral Finance and Investment Advice," Chapters, in: Brian Bruce (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Finance, chapter 15, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Luc Arrondel & André Masson & Daniel Verger, 2004. "Mesurer les préférences individuelles à l'égard du risque," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 374(1), pages 53-85.
    13. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "A second-generation disappointment aversion theory of decision making under risk," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(1), pages 29-60, January.
    14. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    15. Krzysztof Kontek & Michal Lewandowski, 2018. "Range-Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2812-2832, June.
    16. Amos Nadler & Peiran Jiao & Cameron J. Johnson & Veronika Alexander & Paul J. Zak, 2019. "The Bull of Wall Street: Experimental Analysis of Testosterone and Asset Trading," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4032-4051, September.
    17. David Blake & Edmund Cannon & Douglas Wright, 2021. "Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 27-57, August.
    18. Banerjee, Debosree, 2014. "Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Risk, Ambiguity Attitude," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 180978, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    19. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    20. Víctor Alberto Pena & Alina Gómez-Mejía, 2019. "Effect of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and optimism bias in stock market forecasts," Revista Finanzas y Politica Economica, Universidad Católica de Colombia, vol. 11(2), pages 389-409, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rfa:aefjnl:v:7:y:2020:i:2:p:33-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Redfame publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.