Is There A Plausible Theory for Risky Decisions?
AbstractA large literature is concerned with analysis and empirical application of theories of decision making for environments with risky outcomes. Expected value theory has been known for centuries to be subject to critique by St. Petersburg paradox arguments. More recently, theories of risk aversion have been critiqued with calibration arguments applied to concave payoff transformations. This paper extends the calibration critique to decision theories that represent risk aversion solely with transformation of probabilities. Testable calibration propositions are derived that apply to four representative decision theories: expected utility theory, cumulative prospect theory, rank-dependent expected utility theory, and dual expected utility theory. Heretofore, calibration critiques of theories of risk aversion have been based solely on thought experiments. This paper reports real experiments that provide data on the relevance of the calibration critiques to evaluating the plausibility of theories of risk aversion. The paper also discusses implications of the data for (original) prospect theory with editing of reference payoffs and for the new dual-self model of impulse control. In addition, the paper reports an experiment with a truncated St. Petersburg bet that adds to data inconsistent with risk neutrality.
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 InfoPaper provided by Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University in its series Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series with number 2007-05.
Date of creation: Jun 2007
Date of revision: Apr 2008
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2007-06-23 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2007-06-23 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2007-06-23 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HPE-2007-06-23 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2007-06-23 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Riedl Arno, 2012. ": Experimental Economics: Economic and Game Theoretic Principles in Experimental Research in the Social Sciences," Research Memoranda 001, Maastricht : METEOR, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization.
- Eike B. Kroll & Bodo Vogt, 2009. "The St. Petersburg Paradox despite risk-seeking preferences: An experimental study," FEMM Working Papers 09004, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
- Li, Minqiang, 2013. "On Aumann and Serrano's Economic Index of Risk," MPRA Paper 47466, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2011. "Risk Aversion as Attitude towards Probabilities: A Paradox," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2011-10, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
- Tibor Neugebauer, 2010. "Moral Impossibility in the Petersburg Paradox : A Literature Survey and Experimental Evidence," LSF Research Working Paper Series 10-14, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
- Jungmin Lee & Cary Deck & Javier Reyes & Chris Rosen, 2008. "Measuring Risk Attitudes Controlling for Personality Traits," Working Papers 0801, Florida International University, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (J. Todd Swarthout).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.