IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v53y2007i6p1016-1028.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Michael H. Birnbaum

    () (Decision Research Center, Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, 800 North State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92834-6846)

  • Jeffrey P. Bahra

    () (Decision Research Center, Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, 800 North State College Boulevard, Fullerton, California 92834-6846)

Abstract

This experiment tested two behavioral properties of risky decision making--gain-loss separability (GLS) and coalescing. Cumulative prospect theory (CPT) implies both properties, but the transfer of attention exchange (TAX) model violates both. Original prospect theory satisfies GLS but may or may not satisfy coalescing, depending on whether editing rules are assumed. A configural form of CPT proposed by Wu and Markle [Wu, G., A. B. Markle. 2004. An empirical test of gain-loss separability in prospect theory. Working Paper 06-25-04, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago] violates GLS, but satisfies coalescing. New tests were designed and conducted to test these theories against specific predictions of a TAX model. This model used parameters estimated from previous data, together with simple new assumptions to extend TAX to gambles with negative and mixed consequences. Contrary to all three forms of prospect theory, systematic violations of both coalescing and GLS were observed. Violations of GLS were confirmed by analyses of individual data patterns by means of an error model in which each choice can have a different rate of error. Without estimating any parameters from the new data, the TAX model predicted the majority choices in the new data fairly well, correctly predicting when modal choices would violate GLS, when they would satisfy it, and when indifference would be observed.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael H. Birnbaum & Jeffrey P. Bahra, 2007. "Gain-Loss Separability and Coalescing in Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(6), pages 1016-1028, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:53:y:2007:i:6:p:1016-1028
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0592
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    2. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1993. "Testing for Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 235-254, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    5. Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "The Data of Levy and Levy (2002) ÜProspect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?Ý Actually Support Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(7), pages 979-981, July.
    6. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    7. Fennema, Hein & van Assen, Marcel, 1998. "Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Tradeoff Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 277-295, December.
    8. Luce, R Duncan & Fishburn, Peter C, 1995. "A Note on Deriving Rank-Dependent Utility Using Additive Joint Receipts," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 5-16, July.
    9. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    10. Humphrey, Steven J, 1995. "Regret Aversion or Event-Splitting Effects? More Evidence under Risk and Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 263-274, December.
    11. Kobberling, Veronika & Wakker, Peter P., 2005. "An index of loss aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 119-131, May.
    12. Battalio, Raymond C & Kagel, John H & Jiranyakul, Komain, 1990. "Testing between Alternative Models of Choice under Uncertainty: Some Initial Results," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 25-50, March.
    13. Luce, R Duncan & Fishburn, Peter C, 1991. "Rank- and Sign-Dependent Linear Utility Models for Finite First-Order Gambles," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 29-59, January.
    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. Pele Schramm, 2020. "The individual true and error model: Getting the most out of limited data," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(5), pages 851-860, September.
    2. Salvatore Greco & Fabio Rindone, 2014. "The bipolar Choquet integral representation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(1), pages 1-29, June.
    3. Romero-Ramírez, Erick & Venegas-Martínez, Francisco & Trejo-García, José Carlos, 2019. "Revisitando los modelos de Birnbaum-Chávez y de Diamond-Dybvig sobre corridas bancarias ¿Las corridas dependen sólo de fundamentos económicos o también de factores psicológicos?," eseconomía, Escuela Superior de Economía, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, vol. 14(50), pages 7-40, Primer se.
    4. Michael H. Birnbaum & Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca, 2018. "TEMAP2.R: True and Error model analysis program in R," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(5), pages 428-440, September.
    5. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    6. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    7. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Dennie Dolder, 2016. "Measuring Loss Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2011. "What is the actual shape of perception utility?," MPRA Paper 31715, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Yun-shil Cha & Michelle Choi & Ying Guo & Michel Regenwetter & Chris Zwilling, 2013. "Reply: Birnbaum's (2012) statistical tests of independence have unknown Type-I error rates and do not replicate within participant," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(1), pages 55-73, January.
    10. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2013. "True-and-error models violate independence and yet they are testable," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(6), pages 717-737, November.
    11. Hochman, Guy & Ayal, Shahar & Ariely, Dan, 2014. "Keeping your gains close but your money closer: The prepayment effect in riskless choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 582-594.
    12. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    13. Ulrich Schmidt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Third-generation prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 203-223, June.
    14. Michael H. Birnbaum & Lucy Wan, 2020. "MARTER: Markov True and Error model of drifting parameters," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 47-73, January.
    15. Birnbaum, Michael H. & LaCroix, Adam R., 2008. "Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 122-133, January.
    16. Bart de Langhe & Stefano Puntoni, 2015. "Bang for the Buck: Gain-Loss Ratio as a Driver of Judgment and Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1137-1163, May.
    17. Amélie Vrijdags, 2013. "Min- and Max-induced rankings: an experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 233-266, August.
    18. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.

    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. Horst Zank, 2010. "On probabilities and loss aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 243-261, March.
    2. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.
    3. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    4. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    5. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2005. "Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1346-1358, September.
    6. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    7. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Patton, Jamie N. & Lott, Melissa K., 1999. "Evidence against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 44-83, January.
    8. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Wakker, Peter P. & Zank, Horst, 2002. "A simple preference foundation of cumulative prospect theory with power utility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1253-1271, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Han Bleichrodt & Peter P. Wakker, 2015. "Regret Theory: A Bold Alternative to the Alternatives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0(583), pages 493-532, March.
    14. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.
    15. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    16. Han Bleichrodt & Alessandra Cillo & Enrico Diecidue, 2010. "A Quantitative Measurement of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 161-175, January.
    17. R. Luce, 2005. "Measurement analogies: comparisons of behavioral and physical measures," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 227-251, June.
    18. Peter Brooks & Horst Zank, 2005. "Loss Averse Behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 301-325, December.
    19. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    20. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.

    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:53:y:2007:i:6:p:1016-1028. 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: (Matthew Walls). 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.

    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.