IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jrisku/v30y2005i1p5-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice

Author

Listed:
  • John Payne

    ()

Abstract

Imagine that you own a five-outcome gamble with the following payoffs and probabilities: ($100, .20; $50, .20; $0, .20; −$25, .20; −$50, .20). What happens when the opportunity to improve such a gamble is provided by a manipulation that adds value to one outcome versus another outcome, particularly when the opportunity to add value to one outcome versus another outcome changes the overall probability of a gain or the overall probability of a loss? Such a choice provides a simple test of the expected utility model (EU), original prospect theory (OPT), and cumulative prospect theory (CPT). A study of risky choices involving 375 respondents indicates that respondents were most sensitive to changes in outcome values that either increased the overall probability of a strict gain or decreased the overall probability of a strict loss. These results indicate more support for OPT rather than CPT and EU under various assumptions about the shape of the utility and value and weighting functions. Most importantly, the main difference between the various expectation models of risky choice occurs for outcomes near the reference value. A second study of risky choice involving 151 respondents again demonstrated the sensitivity of subjects to reducing the probability of a strict loss even at the cost of reduced expected value. Consequently, we argue that theories of how people choose among gambles that involve three or more consequences with both gains and losses need to include measures of the overall probabilities of a gain and of a loss. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Suggested Citation

  • John Payne, 2005. "It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 5-19, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:30:y:2005:i:1:p:5-19
    DOI: 10.1007/s11166-005-5831-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-005-5831-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. "On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-298, November.
    2. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    3. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    5. 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.
    6. John W. Payne & Dan J. Laughhunn & Roy Crum, 1980. "Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(10), pages 1039-1060, October.
    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. 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.
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    3. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda, 2012. "The missing link: unifying risk taking and time discounting," ECON - Working Papers 096, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Oct 2018.
    4. 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.
    5. Neszveda, G., 2019. "Essays on behavioral finance," Other publications TiSEM 05059039-5236-42a3-be1b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Epper, Thomas & Fehr-Duda, Helga, 2017. "A Tale of Two Tails: On the Coexistence of Overweighting and Underweighting of Rare Extreme Events," Economics Working Paper Series 1705, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    7. 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.
    8. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    10. Brown, Gordon D. A. & Gardner, Jonathan & Oswald, Andrew J. & Qian, Jing, 2005. "Does Wage Rank Affect Employees' Wellbeing?," IZA Discussion Papers 1505, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    12. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality Within Three Dimensions [Face au risque, dans le temps, par rapport aux autres : langage et rationalité dans trois dimensions," Post-Print halshs-01651042, HAL.
    13. 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.
    14. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "Under Uncertainty, Over Time and Regarding Other People: Rationality in 3D," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-20, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    15. David B. Brown & Enrico G. De Giorgi & Melvyn Sim, 2009. "A Satisficing Alternative to Prospect Theory," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2009 2009-09, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    16. Buchholz, Matthias & Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Tax or green nudge? An experimental analysis of pesticide policies in Germany," DARE Discussion Papers 1813, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    17. Wang, Qian & Sundberg, Marcus & Karlström, Anders, 2013. "Scheduling choices under rank dependent utility maximization," Working papers in Transport Economics 2013:16, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    18. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    20. Philippe Delquié & Alessandra Cillo, 2006. "Disappointment without prior expectation: a unifying perspective on decision under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 197-215, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    decision; risk; preference;
    All these 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:kap:jrisku:v:30:y:2005:i:1:p:5-19. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.