Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Theory and Decision 1/2016

21.04.2015

Comparing attitudes toward time and toward money in experience-based decisions

verfasst von: Emmanuel Kemel, Muriel Travers

Erschienen in: Theory and Decision | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper reports an experimental comparison of attitudes toward time and toward money in experience-based decisions. Preferences were elicited under rank-dependent utility for prospects with two or three consequences expressed either in time or in monetary units. Probabilities were unknown but learned through sampling. More specifically, time and money were compared under two conditions. In a first experiment, both consequences and probabilities of prospects were unknown and learned through sequential sampling. In a second experiment, the possible consequences were revealed after the sampling. A real incentive system was implemented for both time and money. The heterogeneity of preferences was assessed for time and for money through individual and mixed modeling estimations. We observe that the nature of consequences (time or money) modifies probability weighting in terms of elevation and sensitivity. Subjects exhibit more optimism and less sensitivity to probability changes when deciding about time than about money. Revealing the consequences impacts the shape of the utility function and leaves probability weighting unchanged. We also observe that the real incentives have no effect except for the reduction in decision errors. This effect is stronger for money than for time.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
We accounted for between-subject heteroscedasticity by allowing \(\sigma \) to vary across individuals. However errors are assumed to be homoscedastic across choices. If this assumption is violated, standard errors may be biased. For this reason, inference relies either on bootstrap or on a comparison of individual-level parameters.
 
2
Halton draws were generated by the halton function provided by the randomtoolbox package, in the R software (The R development core team 2005).
 
3
The range of possible time gains also varied from \(0\) to \(1\) hour as in the present study. Regarding money, the authors considered hypothetical payoffs over [\(0\) €, \(1200\) €]. In the present study, smaller monetary consequences were considered (up to \(150\) €). This allowed for the implementing of real incentives for money as well as for time.
 
4
A case of risk was considered under EBD by Barron and Ursino (2013). Subjects could sample without replacement, which allowed them to learn the objective probabilities.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. (2010). The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101(2), 695–723.CrossRef Abdellaoui, M., Baillon, A., Placido, L., & Wakker, P. (2010). The rich domain of uncertainty: Source functions and their experimental implementation. American Economic Review, 101(2), 695–723.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & L’Haridon, O. (2008). A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 245–266. Abdellaoui, M., Bleichrodt, H., & L’Haridon, O. (2008). A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 36(3), 245–266.
Zurück zum Zitat Abdellaoui, M., & Kemel, E. (2014). Eliciting prospect theory when consequences are measured in time units: Time is not money. Management Sciences, 60(7), 1844–1859.CrossRef Abdellaoui, M., & Kemel, E. (2014). Eliciting prospect theory when consequences are measured in time units: Time is not money. Management Sciences, 60(7), 1844–1859.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Abdellaoui, M., L’Haridon, O., & Praschiv, C. (2011). Experience-based versus description-based decision making: Do we need two different prospect theory specification? Management Science, 57, 1879–1895. Abdellaoui, M., L’Haridon, O., & Praschiv, C. (2011). Experience-based versus description-based decision making: Do we need two different prospect theory specification? Management Science, 57, 1879–1895.
Zurück zum Zitat Andersen, S., Harrison, G., Hole, A., Lau, M., & Rutstrm, E. (2012). Non-linear mixed logit. Theory and Decision, 73(1), 77–96.CrossRef Andersen, S., Harrison, G., Hole, A., Lau, M., & Rutstrm, E. (2012). Non-linear mixed logit. Theory and Decision, 73(1), 77–96.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Barron, G., & Ursino, G. (2013). Underweighting rare events in experience based decisions: Beyond sample error. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 278–286.CrossRef Barron, G., & Ursino, G. (2013). Underweighting rare events in experience based decisions: Beyond sample error. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 278–286.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46, 1485–1496.CrossRef Bleichrodt, H., & Pinto, J. (2000). A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Management Science, 46, 1485–1496.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Beauchamp, J., Benjamin, D., Chabris, C., & Laibson, D. (2012). How malleable are risk preferences and loss aversion, Harvard University mimeo. Beauchamp, J., Benjamin, D., Chabris, C., & Laibson, D. (2012). How malleable are risk preferences and loss aversion, Harvard University mimeo.
Zurück zum Zitat Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality : Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375–1412.CrossRef Bruhin, A., Fehr-Duda, H., & Epper, T. (2010). Risk and rationality : Uncovering heterogeneity in probability distortion. Econometrica, 78(4), 1375–1412.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Camilleri, A., & Newell, B. (2011). When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 377–384.CrossRef Camilleri, A., & Newell, B. (2011). When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and description choice paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 377–384.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Camilleri, A., & Newell, B. (2009). The role of mental representations in experience-based choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 518–529. Camilleri, A., & Newell, B. (2009). The role of mental representations in experience-based choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 518–529.
Zurück zum Zitat De Palma, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Brownstone, D., Holt, C., Magnac, T., McFadden, D., et al. (2008). Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models. Marketing Letters, 19, 269–285.CrossRef De Palma, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Brownstone, D., Holt, C., Magnac, T., McFadden, D., et al. (2008). Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models. Marketing Letters, 19, 269–285.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Etchart-Vincent, N. (2004). Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3), 217–235.CrossRef Etchart-Vincent, N. (2004). Is probability weighting sensitive to the magnitude of consequences? An experimental investigation on losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 28(3), 217–235.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Fehr-Duda, H., Bruhin, A., & Epper, T. (2010). Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(2), 147–180.CrossRef Fehr-Duda, H., Bruhin, A., & Epper, T. (2010). Rationality on the rise: Why relative risk aversion increases with stake size. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 40(2), 147–180.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704.CrossRef Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684–704.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Goldstein, W.M., & Einhorn, H.J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94(2), 236. Goldstein, W.M., & Einhorn, H.J. (1987). Expression theory and the preference reversal phenomena. Psychological Review, 94(2), 236.
Zurück zum Zitat Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 29–166.CrossRef Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 29–166.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hadar, L., & Fox, C. (2009). Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), 317325. Hadar, L., & Fox, C. (2009). Information asymmetry in decision from description versus decision from experience. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), 317325.
Zurück zum Zitat Hau, R., Pleskac, T., Kiefer, J., & Hertwig, R. (2008). The description-experience gap in risky choice: The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 493518.CrossRef Hau, R., Pleskac, T., Kiefer, J., & Hertwig, R. (2008). The description-experience gap in risky choice: The role of sample size and experienced probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21, 493518.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the weighting of rare events. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539.CrossRef Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the weighting of rare events. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E., & Erev, I. (2006). The role of information sampling in risky choice. In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 72–91). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E., & Erev, I. (2006). The role of information sampling in risky choice. In K. Fiedler & P. Juslin (Eds.), Information sampling and adaptive cognition (pp. 72–91). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zurück zum Zitat Hey, J., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326.CrossRef Hey, J., & Orme, C. (1994). Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica, 62(6), 1291–1326.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kemel, E., & Paraschiv, C. (2013). Prospect theory for joint time and money consequences in risk and ambiguity. Transportation Research Part B, 56, 81–95.CrossRef Kemel, E., & Paraschiv, C. (2013). Prospect theory for joint time and money consequences in risk and ambiguity. Transportation Research Part B, 56, 81–95.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.CrossRef Klibanoff, P., Marinacci, M., & Mukerji, S. (2005). A smooth model of decision making under ambiguity. Econometrica, 73(6), 1849–1892.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Augustus Kelley. Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty and profit. New York: Augustus Kelley.
Zurück zum Zitat Krawczyk, M. (2015). Probability weighting in different domains: The role of stakes, fungibility, and affect, working paper 15/2015(132), University of Warsaw. Krawczyk, M. (2015). Probability weighting in different domains: The role of stakes, fungibility, and affect, working paper 15/2015(132), University of Warsaw.
Zurück zum Zitat Li, Z., & Hensher, D. (2011). Prospect theoretic contributions in understanding traveller behaviour: A review and some comments. Transport Reviews, 31(1), 97–115.CrossRef Li, Z., & Hensher, D. (2011). Prospect theoretic contributions in understanding traveller behaviour: A review and some comments. Transport Reviews, 31(1), 97–115.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRef Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66, 497–527.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Stott, H. (2006). Cumulative prospect theorys functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32(2), 101–130.CrossRef Stott, H. (2006). Cumulative prospect theorys functional menagerie. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 32(2), 101–130.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley. Dover edition, 1972. Savage, L. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley. Dover edition, 1972.
Zurück zum Zitat Toubia, O., Johnson, E., Evgeniou, T., & Delqui, P. (2013). Dynamic experiments for estimating preferences: An adaptive method of eliciting time and risk parameters. Management Science, 59(3), 613–640.CrossRef Toubia, O., Johnson, E., Evgeniou, T., & Delqui, P. (2013). Dynamic experiments for estimating preferences: An adaptive method of eliciting time and risk parameters. Management Science, 59(3), 613–640.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ungemach, C., Chater, N., & Stewart, N. (2009). Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)? Psychological Science, 20, 473–479.CrossRef Ungemach, C., Chater, N., & Stewart, N. (2009). Are probabilities overweighted or underweighted when rare outcomes are experienced (rarely)? Psychological Science, 20, 473–479.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wakker, P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Wakker, P. (2010). Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wilcox, N. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. Research in Experimental Economics, 12, 197–292.CrossRef Wilcox, N. (2008). Stochastic models for binary discrete choice under risk: A critical primer and econometric comparison. Research in Experimental Economics, 12, 197–292.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Comparing attitudes toward time and toward money in experience-based decisions
verfasst von
Emmanuel Kemel
Muriel Travers
Publikationsdatum
21.04.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Theory and Decision / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0040-5833
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7187
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-015-9490-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Theory and Decision 1/2016 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Circulant games