IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-26-00112.html

Intemperate fourth-order lottery choices under rank-dependent utility

Author

Listed:
  • David Alan Peel

    (University of Lancaster)

  • Jie Zhang

    (Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University)

Abstract

In the experimental literature, Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), evaluated from the status quo reference point, and Rank Dependent Utility (RDU) are often assumed to imply the same fourth-order lottery choices. In this note, we show that this equivalence need not hold. The RDU model, calibrated with the standard probability weighting and power value functions, and representative parameter values from Tversky and Kahneman (1992) and Bernheim and Sprenger (2020), chooses the intemperate lottery, whereas the CPT DM, evaluated from the status quo reference point with the same parameter values chooses the temperate lottery. The divergence arises because RDU and CPT assign cumulative probability weights differently in this lottery setting. The result suggests that RDU may help explain the relatively high proportion of intemperate choices reported in experimental studies.

Suggested Citation

  • David Alan Peel & Jie Zhang, 2026. "Intemperate fourth-order lottery choices under rank-dependent utility," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 46(2), pages 613-620.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-26-00112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2026/Volume46/EB-26-V46-I2-P52.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    2. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    3. Cary Deck & Harris Schlesinger, 2010. "Exploring Higher Order Risk Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(4), pages 1403-1420.
    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. Ivan Paya & David A. Peel & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2023. "On the predictions of cumulative prospect theory for third and fourth order risk preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 337-359, August.
    6. Bleichrodt, Han & Diecidue, Enrico & Quiggin, John, 2004. "Equity weights in the allocation of health care: the rank-dependent QALY model," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 157-171, January.
    7. Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2025. "Structural Estimation of Higher Order Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 93(5), pages 1855-1883, September.
    8. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    9. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    10. Han Bleichrodt & Paul van Bruggen, 2022. "The Reflection Effect for Higher-Order Risk Preferences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(4), pages 705-717, October.
    11. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 1997. "Characterizing QALYs under a General Rank Dependent Utility Model," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 151-165, November.
    12. Valery Polkovnichenko, 2005. "Household Portfolio Diversification: A Case for Rank-Dependent Preferences," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 1467-1502.
    13. Marielle Brunette & Julien Jacob, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Post-Print hal-04174312, HAL.
    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. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David, 2024. "The Kőszegi–Rabin expectations-based model and risk-apportionment tasks for elicitation of higher order risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 749-770.
    2. van Bruggen, Paul & Laeven, Roger J. A. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2024. "Higher-Order Risk Attitudes for Non-Expected Utility," Other publications TiSEM c566934e-eb60-4b4b-a972-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Konstantinos Georgalos & Ivan Paya & David Peel, 2023. "Higher order risk attitudes: new model insights and heterogeneity of preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 145-192, March.
    4. Ivan Paya & David A. Peel & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2023. "On the predictions of cumulative prospect theory for third and fourth order risk preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 337-359, August.
    5. Yilong Xu & Maarten Boksem & Charles N. Noussair & Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs van de Kuilen & Alan Sanfey, 2025. "Higher order risk preferences and economic decisions," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2025-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    6. Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2025. "Structural Estimation of Higher Order Risk Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 93(5), pages 1855-1883, September.
    7. Ivan Paya & David Peel & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2020. "On the Predictions of Cumulative Prospect Theory for Third and Fourth Order Preferences," Working Papers 293574809, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    8. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    9. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    10. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    11. Tian, Ye & Li, Yudi & Sun, Jian, 2022. "Stick or carrot for traffic demand management? Evidence from experimental economics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 235-254.
    12. Víctor González‐Jiménez, 2024. "Incentive contracts when agents distort probabilities," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), pages 607-653, July.
    13. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    14. Eeckhoudt, Louis R. & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Schlesinger, Harris, 2020. "Risk apportionment: The dual story," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    15. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Paya, Ivan & Peel, David A., 2021. "On the contribution of the Markowitz model of utility to explain risky choice in experimental research," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 527-543.
    16. Sebastian Ebert & Paul Karehnke, 2025. "First-Order Prudence and Its Implications for Precautionary Savings and the Risk-Free Rate," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 73(6), pages 3156-3172, November.
    17. Bottasso, Anna & Duchêne, Sébastien & Guerci, Eric & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Noussair, Charles N., 2026. "Corrigendum to “Higher order risk attitudes of financial experts” [J. Behav. Exp. Finance 34 (2022) 100658]," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    18. Xue Dong He & Moris S. Strub & Thaleia Zariphopoulou, 2021. "Forward rank‐dependent performance criteria: Time‐consistent investment under probability distortion," Mathematical Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 683-721, April.
    19. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    20. Wakker, Peter P., 2023. "A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-26-00112. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.