IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mag/wpaper/09003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is brain activity observable that leads to an evaluation of a probability of 0.5 that is different from 0.5 in binary lottery choices?

Author

Listed:
  • Marcus Heldmann

    (Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Ralf Morgenstern

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Thomas Münte

    (Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg)

  • Bodo Vogt

    (Faculty of Economics and Management, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the problem of probability weighing in the evaluation of lotteries. According to Prospect Theory a probability of 0.5 has a weight of smaller than 0.5. We conduct an EEG experiment in which we compare the results of the evaluation of binary lotteries by certainty equivalents with the results of the bisection method. The bisection method gives the amount of money that corresponds to the midpoint of the utilities of the two payoffs in a binary lottery as it has been shown previously. In this method probabilities are not evaluated. We analyzed EEG data focused on whether a probability is evaluated or not. Our data show differences between the two methods connected with the attention towards sure monetary payoffs, but they do not show brain activity connected with a devaluation of the probability of 0.5.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcus Heldmann & Ralf Morgenstern & Thomas Münte & Bodo Vogt, 2009. "Is brain activity observable that leads to an evaluation of a probability of 0.5 that is different from 0.5 in binary lottery choices?," FEMM Working Papers 09003, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mag:wpaper:09003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/fwwdeka/femm/a2009_Dateien/2009_03.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2009
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Albers Wulf & Pope Robin & Vogt Bodo & Selten Reinhard, 2000. "Experimental Evidence for Attractions to Chance," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 113-130, May.
    2. 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)

    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. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. Serrao, Amilcar & Coelho, Luis, 2004. "Cumulative Prospect Theory: A Study Of The Farmers' Decision Behavior In The Alentejo Dryland Region Of Portugal," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20245, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    5. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Post-Print halshs-00681607, HAL.
    6. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    7. Luís Santos-Pinto & Adrian Bruhin & José Mata & Thomas Åstebro, 2015. "Detecting heterogeneous risk attitudes with mixed gambles," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 573-600, December.
    8. Dichtl, Hubert & Drobetz, Wolfgang, 2011. "Portfolio insurance and prospect theory investors: Popularity and optimal design of capital protected financial products," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1683-1697, July.
    9. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    10. Thomas Epper & Helga Fehr-Duda & Adrian Bruhin, 2011. "Viewing the future through a warped lens: Why uncertainty generates hyperbolic discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 169-203, December.
    11. K. Goda & H. P. Hong, 2008. "Implied Preference for Seismic Design Level and Earthquake Insurance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 523-537, April.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2319 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. LiCalzi, Marco & Sorato, Annamaria, 2006. "The Pearson system of utility functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 560-573, July.
    14. Attema, Arthur E. & l’Haridon, Olivier & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2019. "Measuring multivariate risk preferences in the health domain," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 15-24.
    15. Kim Kaivanto, 2014. "The Effect of Decentralized Behavioral Decision Making on System‐Level Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(12), pages 2121-2142, December.
    16. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    17. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2008. "Risk Aversion in Cumulative Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 208-216, January.
    18. Loreto Llorente & Josemari Aizpurua, 2008. "A Betting Market: Description and a Theoretical Explanation of Bets in Pelota Matches," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 421-446, March.
    19. Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1719-1738, September.
    20. Diecidue, Enrico & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Dutch books: avoiding strategic and dynamic complications, and a comonotonic extension," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 135-149, March.
    21. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mag:wpaper:09003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Guido Henkel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwmagde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.