IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v32y1986i9p1065-1086.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Preferences for Gains and Losses in Multiple Objective Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory W. Fischer

    (Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Mark S. Kamlet

    (Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • Stephen E. Fienberg

    (Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213)

  • David Schkade

    (College of Business Administration, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712)

Abstract

Payne, Laughhunn, and Crum (Payne, J. W., D. J. Laughhunn, R. Crum. 1984. An experimental study of multiattribute risky choice. Management Sci. 30 1350--1361.) found that managers were multiattribute risk averse for gains, but multiattribute risk prone for losses, a pattern that is inconsistent with both the additive and the multiplicative multiattribute utility models. In this paper we develop the reference risk-value (RRV) model, which is simple in structure yet capable of representing the kinds of multiattribute reference effects observed by Payne et al. We also report the results of two experiments that compare the descriptive validity of the RRV model with that of the additive and multiplicative utility models. Experiment 1 involved choices between risky multiperiod cash flows; Experiment 2 choices between risky job alternatives described by change in salary and change in type of work. In Experiment 1, subjects were multiattribute risk averse for gains, but multiattribute risk neutral for losses. In Experiment 2, subjects were multiattribute risk averse for both gains and losses, but significantly more so for losses. Because both experiments produced significantly different multiattribute risk preferences for gains than losses, both favor the RRV model over the widely used additive and multiplicative models. However, because the patterns of multiattribute risk preferences for gains and losses were strikingly different in the two experiments, these results argue against any direct generalization of the "reflection effect" to a multiattribute context.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory W. Fischer & Mark S. Kamlet & Stephen E. Fienberg & David Schkade, 1986. "Risk Preferences for Gains and Losses in Multiple Objective Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(9), pages 1065-1086, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:32:y:1986:i:9:p:1065-1086
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.9.1065
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, June.
    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. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    2. Maximilian Rüdisser & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2017. "Do casinos pay their customers to become risk-averse? Revising the house money effect in a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, pages 736-754.
    3. Wilson, Kevin J. & Quigley, John, 2016. "Allocation of tasks for reliability growth using multi-attribute utility," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(1), pages 259-271.
    4. Han Bleichrodt & Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2009. "Additive Utility in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, pages 863-873.
    5. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, pages 1498-1514.
    6. Matos, Manuel A., 2007. "Decision under risk as a multicriteria problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1516-1529, September.
    7. repec:eee:jobhdp:v:140:y:2017:i:c:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Peter P. Wakker & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans & Irma Machielse, 2007. "The Effects of Statistical Information on Risk and Ambiguity Attitudes, and on Rational Insurance Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, pages 1770-1784.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:32:y:1986:i:9:p:1065-1086. 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: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.