IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joepsy/v27y2006i3p386-401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes

Author

Listed:
  • Schunk, Daniel
  • Betsch, Cornelia

Abstract

The curvature of utility functions varies between people. We suggest that there is a relationship between individual differences in preferred decision mode (intuition vs. deliberation) and the curvature of the individual utility function. If a person habitually prefers a deliberative mode, the utility function should be nearly linear, while it should be curved when a person prefers the intuitive mode. In this study the utility functions of the subjects were assessed using a lottery-based elicitation method and related to a measurement of the habitual mode preference for intuition and deliberation. Results confirm that people who prefer the deliberative mode have a utility function that is more linear than for people who prefer the intuitive mode. Our findings indicate a stronger affective bias of subjective values in intuitive than deliberate decision makers. While deliberative decision makers may have rather used the stated values, intuitive decision makers may have additionally integrated affective reactions towards the stimuli into the decision.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Schunk, Daniel & Betsch, Cornelia, 2006. "Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in decision modes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 386-401, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:joepsy:v:27:y:2006:i:3:p:386-401
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-4870(05)00086-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus Glaser & Martin Weber, 2007. "Overconfidence and trading volume," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 32(1), pages 1-36, June.
    2. Mano, Haim, 1994. "Risk-Taking, Framing Effects, and Affect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 38-58, January.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    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. Fetherstonhaugh, David & Slovic, Paul & Johnson, Stephen & Friedrich, James, 1997. "Insensitivity to the Value of Human Life: A Study of Psychophysical Numbing," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 283-300, May-June.
    6. Peter Wakker & Daniel Deneffe, 1996. "Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities When Probabilities Are Distorted or Unknown," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(8), pages 1131-1150, August.
    7. Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 1988. "Information displays and preference reversals," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    9. Wright, William F. & Bower, Gordon H., 1992. "Mood effects on subjective probability assessment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 276-291, July.
    10. Loewenstein, George & O'Donoghue, Ted, 2004. "Animal Spirits: Affective and Deliberative Processes in Economic Behavior," Working Papers 04-14, Cornell University, Center for Analytic Economics.
    11. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    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. Peter Wakker & Veronika Köbberling & Christiane Schwieren, 2007. "Prospect-theory’s Diminishing Sensitivity Versus Economics’ Intrinsic Utility of Money: How the Introduction of the Euro can be Used to Disentangle the Two Empirically," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 205-231, November.
    2. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
    3. Markus Glaser & Martin Weber, 2007. "Overconfidence and trading volume," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 32(1), pages 1-36, June.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Corina Paraschiv, 2007. "Loss Aversion Under Prospect Theory: A Parameter-Free Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1659-1674, October.
    5. Emin Gahramanov & Xueli Tang, 2016. "Impatient in Experiments, but Patient in Simulations: A Challenge to the Heckman-Type Model," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 92(297), pages 268-290, June.
    6. José Lejarraga & Ester Martínez-Ros, 2010. "Revisiting the Size-R&D Productivity Relation: Introducing the Mediating Role of Decision-Making Style on the Scale and Quality of Innovative Output," Working Papers 1006, Departament Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, revised Mar 2010.
    7. Krawczyk, Michał Wiktor, 2015. "Probability weighting in different domains: The role of affect, fungibility, and stakes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-15.
    8. 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.
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2009. "Additive Utility in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 863-873, May.
    10. Fischer, Anke & Glenk, Klaus, 2011. "One model fits all? -- On the moderating role of emotional engagement and confusion in the elicitation of preferences for climate change adaptation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1178-1188, April.
    11. Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo & Enrico Diecidue, 2010. "A Quantitative Measurement of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 161-175, January.
    12. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "The shape of the utility function under risk in the loss domain and the "ruinous losses" hypothesis: some experimental results," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 29(2), pages 1393-1402.
    13. José Lejarraga & Ester Martinez-Ros, 2014. "Size, R&D productivity and Decision Styles," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 643-662, March.
    14. Glenn W. Harrison & J. Todd Swarthout, 2016. "Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    15. Gould, Stephen J. & Kramer, Thomas, 2009. ""What's it Worth to Me?" Three interpretive studies of the relative roles of task-oriented and reflexive processes in separate versus joint value construction," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 840-858, December.
    16. repec:gam:jgames:v:9:y:2018:i:1:p:4-:d:127477 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:eee:joepsy:v:27:y:2006:i:3:p:386-401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joep .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.