IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/pepspp/v13y2008i2n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Sensitivity of Critical Risk Values to Small Changes in the Value of the Status Quo

Author

Listed:
  • Carlson Lisa J

    (University of Idaho)

  • Dacey Raymond

    (University of Idaho)

Abstract

This paper reports on a technical result that we have derived from various formal models that support a prospect-theoretic account of the traditional deterrence game. The result is as follows. In sequential prospect-theoretic play of the traditional deterrence game, under both one-sided and two-sided incomplete information, Challenger's decision over whether or not to threaten Defender can be remarkably sensitive to the specification of the model's parameter values, including very small changes in the valuation of the status quo.This result supports the intuition commonly advanced in the International Relations literature: a loss averse decision maker will choose the risk averse act if the sure-thing is perceived to be acceptable, and will choose the risk preferring act if the sure-thing is perceived to be unacceptable. The foregoing intuitive explanation for a decision maker's risk-related behavior relies, in general, on only two variables: the presence of loss aversion and the valuation of the status quo. Here we show that this explanation is under-specified in that the degree of sensitivity also depends on the quality of Challenger's probability assessment and on the relative size of the value of the status quo vis-à-vis the size of the other payoffs in the game.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlson Lisa J & Dacey Raymond, 2008. "The Sensitivity of Critical Risk Values to Small Changes in the Value of the Status Quo," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 89-110, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:pepspp:v:13:y:2008:i:2:n:2
    DOI: 10.2202/1554-8597.1116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-8597.1116
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1554-8597.1116?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey D. Berejikian, 2002. "A Cognitive Theory of Deterrence," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 39(2), pages 165-183, March.
    2. Brock F. Tessman & Steve Chan, 2004. "Power Cycles, Risk Propensity, and Great-Power Deterrence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(2), pages 131-153, April.
    3. William Harbaugh & Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund, 2002. "Risk Attitudes of Children and Adults: Choices Over Small and Large Probability Gains and Losses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 53-84, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Lisa J. Carlson & Raymond Dacey, 2006. "Sequential Analysis of Deterrence Games with a Declining Status Quo," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(2), pages 181-198, April.
    6. Christopher K. Butler, 2007. "Prospect Theory and Coercive Bargaining," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 51(2), pages 227-250, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    2. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    3. Oliver, Adam, 2018. "Your money and your life: risk attitudes over gains and losses," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 88583, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    5. Sabine Liebenehm & Ingmar Schumacher & Eric Strobl, 2024. "Rainfall shocks and risk aversion: Evidence from Southeast Asia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(1), pages 145-176, January.
    6. Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2017. "Very Low Probabilities in the Loss Domain," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 41-58, March.
    7. Topi Miettinen & Olli Ropponen & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2020. "Prospect Theory, Fairness, and the Escalation of Conflict at a Negotiation Impasse," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(4), pages 1535-1574, October.
    8. Lucks, Konstantin E. & Lührmann, Melanie & Winter, Joachim, 2020. "Assortative matching and social interaction: A field experiment on adolescents’ risky choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 313-340.
    9. E. Elisabet Rutstrom & Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau, 2004. "Estimating Risk Attitudes in Denmark," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 201, Econometric Society.
    10. Glimcher, Paul W. & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2023. "Expected subjective value theory (ESVT): A representation of decision under risk and certainty," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 110-128.
    11. Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2017. "Very Low Probabilities in the Loss Domain," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 41-58, March.
    12. Yuri Imaizumi & Agnieszka Tymula & Yasuhiro Tsubo & Masayuki Matsumoto & Hiroshi Yamada, 2022. "A neuronal prospect theory model in the brain reward circuitry," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    13. Franziska Ziegelmeyer, 2010. "Elterliche Stellvertreterentscheidungen und frühkindliche Humankapitalbildung," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 79(3), pages 57-77.
    14. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2003. "Do the eealthy risk more money? An experimental comparison," Economics Working Papers 692, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2005.
    15. Satakhun Kosavinta & Donyaprueth Krairit & Do Ba Khang, 2017. "Decision making in the pre-development stage of residential development," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(2), pages 160-183, March.
    16. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Silvestre, Joaquim, 2010. "Averting risk in the face of large losses: Bernoulli vs. Tversky and Kahneman," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 180-182, May.
    17. Raymond Dacey & Lisa J. Carlson, 2004. "Traditional Decision Analysis and the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 38-55, February.
    18. Carlson Lisa J & Dacey Raymond, 2006. "Confusions of Loss Aversion and Risk Attitude in International Relations and Peace Science," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 92-106, September.
    19. Jie Zhang & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2010. "An Empirical Analysis of Choices Between Gambles of Children and Adults in China," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, March.
    20. Nicolas Roux, 2008. "The Attitude Toward Probabilities of Portfolio Managers : an Experimental Study," Post-Print halshs-00344785, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:bpj:pepspp:v:13:y:2008:i:2:n:2. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyterbrill.com .

    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.