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

Separating attitudes towards money from attitudes towards probabilities: Stake effects and ambiguity as a test for prospect theory

  • Vieider, Ferdinand M.
  • Cingl, Lubomír
  • Martinsson, Peter
  • Stojic, Hrvoje

Prospect theory (PT) is the dominant descriptive theory of decision making under risk today. For the modeling of choices, PT relies on a psychologically founded separation of risk attitudes into attitudes towards outcomes, captured in a value function; and attitudes towards probabilities, captured in a probability weighting function. However, while it is theoretically sound, it is unclear whether this clear separation is reflected in actual choices. To test this, we designed two experiments. In the first experiment, we elicit the value and probability weighting functions both under known and unknown probabilities. The results support PT and show that the value function is unaffected by the nature of the probabilities, which only affects probability weighting. More in general, this finding supports theories that represent ambiguity attitudes through probability transformations rather than utility transformations. In the second experiment, we examine the effects of an increase in stakes on risk attitudes. We find that the stake increase is not reflected in the value function, but rather in the weighting function, thus contradicting PT's prediction.

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://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/83653/1/767939557.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) in its series Discussion Papers, WZB Junior Research Group Risk and Development with number SP II 2013-401.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:zbw:wzbrad:spii2013401
Contact details of provider: Postal: Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany
Phone: ++49 - 30 - 25491 - 0
Fax: ++49 - 30 - 25491 - 684
Web page: http://www.wzb.eu/Email:


More information through EDIRC

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. Gaudecker, Hans-Martin von & van Soest, Arthur & Wengström, Erik, 2009. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behaviour in a Broad Population," IZA Discussion Papers 4022, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Guido Baltussen & G. Post & Martijn Assem & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Random incentive systems in a dynamic choice experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 418-443, September.
  3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L'Haridon & Dennie Van Dolder, 2013. "Source-Dependence of Utility and Loss Aversion: A Critical Test of Ambiguity Models," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes 1 & University of Caen) 201330, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes 1, University of Caen and CNRS.
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:zbw:wzbrad:spii2013401. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics)

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.