Explaining heterogeneity in utility functions by individual differences in preferred decision modes
The curvature of utility functions varies between people. We suggest that there exists a relationship between the mode in which a person usually makes a decision and the curvature of the individual utility function. In a deliberate decision mode, a decision-maker tends to have a nearly linear utility function. In an intuitive decision mode, the utility function is more curved. In our experiment the utility function is assessed with a lottery-based utility elicitation method and related to a measure that assesses the habitual preference for intuition and deliberation (Betsch, submitted). Results confirm that for people that habitually use the deliberate decision mode, the utility function is more linear than for people that habitually use the intuitive decision mode. The finding and its implications for the research on individual decision behavior in economics and psychology are discussed.
|Date of creation:||19 Jul 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, SFB 504, at the University of Mannheim, is gratefully acknowledged.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: D-68131 Mannheim|
Phone: (49) (0) 621-292-2547
Fax: (49) (0) 621-292-5594
Web page: http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de/
More information through EDIRC
Web page: http://www.sfb504.uni-mannheim.de
|Order Information:|| Email: |
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.:
- 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.
- 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.
- Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
- Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
- Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
- 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.
- Mano, Haim, 1994. "Risk-Taking, Framing Effects, and Affect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 38-58, January.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7656, David K. Levine.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:xrs:sfbmaa:04-26. 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: (Carsten Schmidt)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.