Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Experimental investigations of the probability weighting function over losses are scarce and all involve small payoffs. The paper aims to give new insight into the probability weighting function for losses, by eliciting it through a simple two-stage semi-parametric procedure over more realistic losses, and by investigating its sensitivity to the magnitude of the payoffs. Current data confirm previous evidence of convex utility functions and inverse-S-shaped weighting functions. Still, at least for small probabilities, probability weighting appears to be affected by the size of consequences: the larger the losses, the more aversive the gambles and the more pessimistic the subjects are.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdellaoui, Mohammed. (2000). “Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions,” Management Science 46(11), 1497-1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui, Mohammed. (2002). “A Genuine Rank-Dependent Generalization of the von Neumann-Morgenstern Expected Utility Theorem,” Econometrica 70(2), 717-736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdellaoui, Mohammed, Carolina Barrios, and Peter P. Wakker. (2002). “Reconciling Introspective Utility with Revealed Preference: Experimental Arguments Based on Prospect Theory,” CREED, Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam.

  • Allais, Maurice. (1988). “The General Theory of Random Choices in Relation to the Invariant Cardinal Utility Function and the Specific Probability Function: The (U, θ) Model, a General Overview.” In Bertrand Munier (ed.), Risk, Decision and Rationality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleichrodt, Han and J. Luis Pinto. (2000). “A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis,” Management Science 46(11), 1485-1496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostic, Raphael, Richard J. Herrnstein, and R. Duncan Luce. (1990). “The Effect on the Preference Reversal Phenomenon of Using Choice Indifferences,” Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 13, 193-212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. (1992). “Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory.” In Ward Edwards (ed.), Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, Colin F. and Robin M. Hogarth. (1999). “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19, 7-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica and John D. Hey. (1994a). “Estimation of Expected Utility and Non-expected Utility Preference Functionals Using Complete Ranking Data.” In Bertrand Munier and Mark J. Machina (eds.), Models and Experiments on Risk and Rationality. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica and John D. Hey. (1994b). “Discriminating Between Preference Functionals: A Preliminary Monte Carlo Study,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 8, 223-242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, Enrica and John D. Hey. (1995). “A Comparison of the Estimates of Expected Utility and Non-Expected Utility Preferences Functionals,” Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory 20, 111-133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chateauneuf, Alain and Michèle Cohen. (1994). “Risk Seeking with Diminishing Marginal Utility in a Non-Expected Utility Model,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 77-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Michèle. (1995). “Risk Aversion Concepts in Expected-and Non-Expected Utility Models,” The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory 42, 370-380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currim, Imran S. and Rakesh K. Sarin. (1989). “Prospect versus Utility,” Management Science 35(1), 22-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diecidue, Enrico and Peter P. Wakker. (2001). “On the Intuition of Rank-Dependent Utility,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 23(3), 281-298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennema, Hein and Marcel Van Assen. (1999). “Measuring the Utility of Losses by Means of the Tradeoff Method,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17(3), 277-295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, William M. and Hillel J. Einhorn. (1987). “Expression Theory and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon,” Psychological Review 94, 236-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, Richard and George Wu. (1999). “On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function,” Cognitive Psychology 38, 129-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Jerry R. and Bruno Jullien. (1988). “Ordinal Independence in Non-Linear Utility Theory,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14, 355-388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harless, David W. and Colin F. Camerer. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories,” Econometrica 62(6), 1251-1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, Robin M. and Hillel J. Einhorn. (1990). “Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights,” Management Science 36(7), 780-803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica 47, 263-291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köbberling, Veronika and Peter P. Wakker. (2003). “Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique,” Mathematics of Operations Research 28, 395-423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühberger, Anton, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and Josef Perner. (1999). “The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78(3), 204-231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore, Pamela K., Joanna R. Baker, and Ann D. Witte. (1992). “The Influence of Probability on Risky Choice: A Parametric Examination,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 17, 377-400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughhunn, Dan J., John W. Payne, and Roy Crum. (1980). “Managerial Risk Preferences for Below-Target Returns,” Management Science 26, 1238-1249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, Robert and Peter C. Fishburn. (1977). “Behavioral Models of Risk Taking in Business Decisions: A Survey and Evaluation,” Journal of Accounting Research 15, 272-292.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCord, Mark R. and Richard de Neufville. (1983). “Empirical Demonstration that Expected Utility Decision Analysis is not Operational.” In Bernt P. Stigum and Fred Wenstop (eds.), Foundations of Utility and Risk. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelec, Drazen. (1998). “The Probability Weighting Function,” Econometrica 66(3), 497-527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, John. (1982). “A Theory of Anticipated Utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 323-343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, John. (1989). “Sure-Things-Dominance and Independence Rules for Choice Under Uncertainty,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 335-357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin, John. (1993) Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model, Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha, Atanu. (1993). “Expo-Power Utility: A Flexible Form for Absolute and Relative Risk Aversion,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 905-913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, Rakesh K. and Peter P. Wakker. (1998). “Revealed Likelihood and Knightian Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 16, 223-250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, Paul J.H. and John C. Hershey. (1992). “Utility Measurement: Signal, Noise and Bias,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52, 397-424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Uzi. (1989). “Anticipated Utility: A Measure Representation Approach,” Annals of Operations Research 19, 359-373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Uzi. (1993). “The Measure Representation: A Correction,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 99-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, Chris. (2000). “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Journal of Economic Literature 38, 332-382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard H. and Eric J. Johnson. (1990). “Gambling with the House Money and Trying to Break Even: The Effects of Prior Outcomes on Risky Choices,” Management Science 36(6), 643-660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Craig R. Fox. (1995). “Weighing Risk and Uncertainty,” Psychological Review 102, 269-283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297-323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos and Peter P. Wakker. (1995). “Risk Attitudes and Decision Weights,” Econometrica 63, 1255-1280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeld, Detlof and Ward Edwards. (1986) Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter P. (1994). “Separating Marginal Utility and Probabilistic Risk Aversion,” Theory and Decision 36, 1-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter P. and Daniel Deneffe. (1996). “Eliciting von Neumann-Morgenstern Utilities when Probabilities are Distorted or Unknown,” Management Science 42(8), 1131-1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, Peter P., Ido Erev, and Elke U. Weber. (1994). “Comonotonic Independence: The Critical Test Between Classical and Rank-dependent Utility Theories,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 9, 195-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, George and Richard Gonzalez. (1996). “Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function,” Management Science 42, 1676-1690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaari, Menahem E. (1987). “The Dual Theory of Choice Under Risk,” Econometrica 55(1), 95-115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GRID, Maison de la Recherche de l'ESTP, 30 Avenue du Président Wilson, 94 230, Cachan, France

    Nathalie Etchart-Vincent

Authors
  1. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Etchart-Vincent, N. Is Probability Weighting Sensitive to the Magnitude of Consequences? An Experimental Investigation on Losses. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28, 217–235 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000026096.48985.a3

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISK.0000026096.48985.a3

Search

Navigation