IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses

  • Nathalie Etchart-Vincent

    ()

The main goal of the experimental study described in this paper is to investigate the sensitivity of probability weighting to the payoff structure of the gambling situation--namely the level of consequences at stake and the spacing between them--in the loss domain. For that purpose, three kinds of gambles are introduced: two kinds of homogeneous gambles (involving either small or large losses), and heterogeneous gambles involving both large and small losses. The findings suggest that at least for moderate/high probability of loss do both 'level' and 'spacing' effects reach significance, with the impact of 'spacing' being both opposite to and stronger than the impact of 'level'. As compared to small-loss gambles, large-loss gambles appear to enhance probabilistic optimism, while heterogeneous gambles tend to increase pessimism.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11166-009-9066-0
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Journal of Risk and Uncertainty.

Volume (Year): 39 (2009)
Issue (Month): 1 (August)
Pages: 45-63

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:39:y:2009:i:1:p:45-63
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100299

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2004. "Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 217-235, 05.
  3. Sunstein, Cass R, 2003. " Terrorism and Probability Neglect," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 121-36, March-May.
  4. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P, 2001. " On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 281-98, November.
  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. Segal, Uzi, 1993. " The Measure Representation: A Correction," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 99-107, January.
  7. Kate Krause & Lise Vesterlund & William Harbaugh, 2002. "Risk attitudes of children and adults: Choices over small and large probability gains and losses," Artefactual Field Experiments 00055, The Field Experiments Website.
  8. Daniel McFadden, 1998. "Rationality for Economists?," Working Papers 98-09-086, Santa Fe Institute.
  9. Harless, David W & Camerer, Colin F, 1994. "The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1251-89, November.
  10. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Frank Vossmann & Martin Weber, 2005. "Choice-Based Elicitation and Decomposition of Decision Weights for Gains and Losses Under Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1384-1399, September.
  11. Viscusi, W Kip, 1989. " Prospective Reference Theory: Toward an Explanation of the Paradoxes," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 235-63, September.
  12. Richard H. Thaler & Eric J. Johnson, 1990. "Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 643-660, June.
  13. Pamela K. Lattimore & Joanna R. Baker & A. Dryden Witte, 1992. "The Influence Of Probability on Risky Choice: A parametric Examination," NBER Technical Working Papers 0081, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Tversky, Amos & Wakker, Peter, 1995. "Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(6), pages 1255-80, November.
  15. Enrico Diecidue & Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Parametric Weighting Functions," Kiel Working Papers 1395, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  16. 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.
  17. Cohen, Michele & Jaffray, Jean-Yves & Said, Tanios, 1987. "Experimental comparison of individual behavior under risk and under uncertainty for gains and for losses," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-22, February.
  18. Mohammed Abdellaoui & ArthurE. Attema & Han Bleichrodt, 2010. "Intertemporal Tradeoffs for Gains and Losses: An Experimental Measurement of Discounted Utility," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(545), pages 845-866, 06.
  19. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
  20. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Barrios, Carolina & Wakker, Peter P., 2007. "Reconciling introspective utility with revealed preference: Experimental arguments based on prospect theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 356-378, May.
  21. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto, 2000. "A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1485-1496, November.
  22. Green, Jerry R & Jullien, Bruno, 1988. " Ordinal Independence in Nonlinear Utility Theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 355-87, December.
  23. Keasey, Kevin & Moon, Philip, 1996. "Gambling with the house money in capital expenditure decisions: An experimental analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 105-110, January.
  24. Bostic, Raphael & Herrnstein, R. J. & Luce, R. Duncan, 1990. "The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 193-212, March.
  25. Lattimore, Pamela K. & Baker, Joanna R. & Witte, Ann D., 1992. "The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 377-400, May.
  26. Weber, Bethany J. & Chapman, Gretchen B., 2005. "Playing for peanuts: Why is risk seeking more common for low-stakes gambles?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 31-46, May.
  27. Beattie, Jane & Loomes, Graham, 1997. "The Impact of Incentives upon Risky Choice Experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 155-68, March.
  28. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
  29. Alarie, Yves & Dionne, Georges, 2001. " Lottery Decisions and Probability Weighting Function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 21-33, January.
  30. Charles Mason & Jason Shogren & Chad Settle & John List, 2005. "Investigating Risky Choices Over Losses Using Experimental Data," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 187-215, September.
  31. Helga Fehr & Thomas Epper & Adrian Bruhin & Renate Schubert, 2007. "Risk and Rationality: The Effect of Incidental Mood on Probability Weighting," SOI - Working Papers 0703, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
  32. Cummins, J David & Tennyson, Sharon, 1996. "Moral Hazard in Insurance Claiming: Evidence from Automobile Insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 29-50, January.
  33. Kluger, Avraham N. & Stephan, Elena & Ganzach, Yoav & Hershkovitz, Meirav, 2004. "The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: Evidence from a cross-modality matching method," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 20-39, September.
  34. 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.
  35. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
  36. Rosett, R N, 1971. "Weak Experimental Verification of the Expected Utility Hypothesis," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(116), pages 481-92, October.
  37. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent & Olivier l’Haridon, 2011. "Monetary incentives in the loss domain and behavior toward risk: An experimental comparison of three reward schemes including real losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 61-83, February.
  38. 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.
  39. Kunreuther, Howard & Novemsky, Nathan & Kahneman, Daniel, 2001. " Making Low Probabilities Useful," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 103-20, September.
  40. 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.
  41. Doron Sonsino, 2008. "Disappointment Aversion in internet Bidding-Decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 363-393, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jrisku:v:39:y:2009:i:1:p:45-63. 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: (Guenther Eichhorn)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.