scholarly journals Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Post ◽  
Martijn J van den Assem ◽  
Guido Baltussen ◽  
Richard H Thaler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Path Dependence ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
Game Show ◽  
Dependent Choice

We examine the risky choices of contestants in the popular TV game show “Deal or No Deal” and related classroom experiments. Contrary to the traditional view of expected utility theory, the choices can be explained in large part by previous outcomes experienced during the game. Risk aversion decreases after earlier expectations have been shattered by unfavorable outcomes or surpassed by favorable outcomes. Our results point to reference-dependent choice theories such as prospect theory, and suggest that path-dependence is relevant, even when the choice problems are simple and well defined, and when large real monetary amounts are at stake. (JEL D81)

Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice

1988 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 719-736 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Quattrone ◽  
Amos Tversky
Keyword(s):  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Reference Point ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Risky Choice ◽  
Political Candidates ◽  
Risk Seeking ◽  
Psychological Analysis

We contrast the rational theory of choice in the form of expected utility theory with descriptive psychological analysis in the form of prospect theory, using problems involving the choice between political candidates and public referendum issues. The results showed that the assumptions underlying the classical theory of risky choice are systematically violated in the manner predicted by prospect theory. In particular, our respondents exhibited risk aversion in the domain of gains, risk seeking in the domain of losses, and a greater sensitivity to losses than to gains. This is consistent with the advantage of the incumbent under normal conditions and the potential advantage of the challenger in bad times. The results further show how a shift in the reference point could lead to reversals of preferences in the evaluation of political and economic options, contrary to the assumption of invariance. Finally, we contrast the normative and descriptive analyses of uncertainty in choice and address the rationality of voting.

scholarly journals ECONOMICS OF RANDOMNESS: BEHAVIORAL ASPECTS OF DECISION MAKING UNDER RISK

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-14
Author(s):  
Alexander Krasilnikov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Uncertainty Analysis ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Probabilistic Methods ◽  
Risk And Uncertainty ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
History Of

The paper discusses evolution of the concept of risk in economics. History of probabilistic methods and approaches to risk and uncertainty analysis is considered. Expected utility theory, behavioral approaches, heuristic models and methods of neuroeconomics are analyzed. Author investigates stability of neoclassical program related to risk analysis and suggests further directions of development.

Measuring Utility, Destabilizing EUT

2018 ◽  
pp. 261-280
Author(s):  
Ivan Moscati
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Behavioral Models ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
Utility Measurement ◽  
Elicitation Methods ◽  
Series Of Experiments

Chapter 16 shows how the validity of expected utility theory (EUT) was increasingly called into question between the mid-1960s and the mid-1970s and discusses how a series of experiments performed from 1974 to 1985 undermined the earlier confidence that EUT makes it possible to measure utility. Beginning in the mid-1960s, in a series of experiments seminal to the field later called behavioral economics, Sarah Lichtenstein, Paul Slovic, Amos Tversky, and others showed that decision patterns violating EUT are systematic. The new experimenters who engaged with the EUT-based measurement of utility from the mid-1970s, namely Uday Karmarkar, Richard de Neufville, Paul Schoemaker, and coauthors, showed that different elicitation methods to measure utility, which according to EUT should produce the same outcome, generate different measures. These findings contributed to destabilizing EUT, undermined the confidence in EUT-based utility measurement, and helped foster a blossoming of novel behavioral models of decision-making under risk.

scholarly journals Farm decision making under risk and uncertainty

1997 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.B.C. Backus ◽  
V.R. Eidman ◽  
A.A. Dijkhuizen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Decision Problems ◽  
Subjective Expected Utility ◽  
Risk And Uncertainty ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
Agricultural Risk ◽  
Risk Research

Relevant portions of the risk literature are reviewed, relating them to observed behaviour in farm decision-making. Relevant topics for applied agricultural risk research are proposed. The concept of decision making under risk and uncertainty is discussed by reviewing the theory of Subjective Expected Utility and its limitations. Subjective Expected Utility theory is the major framework for thinking systematically through complex issues of decision. Limitations of Subjective Expected Utility theory were that its application to unique decisions is doubtful, that it does not contribute to difficulties in determining the available decision alternatives, and that it is cast in a timeless setting, making the theoretic framework to a very limited extent helpful to solve real world decision problems. Most empirical studies indicate that farmers are risk neutral to slightly risk averse. It is doubtful whether decision makers could be classified according to their risk preferences. A presented overview of applied risk responses reveals much attention for diversification of the enterprise and of production practices, maintaining reserves, and farm expansion. Research reports on observed problems in farm decision making behaviour are lacking. Proposed topics for agricultural risk research include the assessment of the need for a strategic change, the creation of databases to determine both the (co)variances of input and output prices, the effectiveness of various kinds of decision support for different decision problems, and methods for applied scenario analysis to deal with long-run risk.

scholarly journals Normative and descriptive theories of decision making under risk

2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Damnjanovic ◽  
Ivana Jankovic
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Developmental Stages ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Decision Making Under Risk ◽  
Von Neumann ◽  
Basic Concepts ◽  
Descriptive Theories

The approaches to the decision making process are typically either normative or descriptive. We sketch a historical development of the decision theory, starting with concept of utility that was first introduced by Daniel Bernoulli and then explaining the basic concepts of von Neumann and Morgenstern?s normative expected utility theory (including the basic axioms of rationality). Then we present the descriptively oriented prospect theory of Kahneman and Tversky as a critique of the expected utility theory. We compare these theories and conclude that their historical sequence captures the sequence of the developmental stages of the decision-making process itself. However, normative and descriptive theories are not mutually exclusive.

scholarly journals On the futility of estimating utility functions: Why the parameters we measure are wrong, and why they do not generalize

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Stewart ◽  
Emina Canic ◽  
Timothy L Mullett
Keyword(s):  
Parameter Estimation ◽  
Risk Aversion ◽  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
Parameter Estimates ◽  
Risky Choices ◽  
Long Time

We have known for a long time that people’s risky choices depart systematically from expected utility theory,and also from related models like prospect theory. But it is still common to use expected utility theory orprospect theory to estimate parameters like risk aversion from sets of risky choices. We have also known fora long time that when parameters are estimated, a systematic departure between the model and the datacauses biased parameter estimates. Here we show how the bias in parameter estimation interacts with the setof choices presented to participants. We find that estimates of risk aversion vary greatly between choice setseven though no real differences in risk aversion exist. We find parameters do not generalise at all betweenchoice sets, even when the sets are random draws from a master choice set.

scholarly journals Cumulative Prospect Theory Version with Fuzzy Values of Outcome Estimates

Risks ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Oleg Uzhga-Rebrov ◽  
Peter Grabusts
Keyword(s):  
Prospect Theory ◽  
Expected Utility ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Cumulative Prospect Theory ◽  
Development History ◽  
Decisions Under Risk ◽  
History Of ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

Choosing solutions under risk and uncertainty requires the consideration of several factors. One of the main factors in choosing a solution is modeling the decision maker’s attitude to risk. The expected utility theory was the first approach that allowed to correctly model various nuances of the attitude to risk. Further research in this area has led to the emergence of even more effective approaches to solving this problem. Currently, the most developed theory of choice with respect to decisions under risk conditions is the cumulative prospect theory. This paper presents the development history of various extensions of the original expected utility theory, and the analysis of the main properties of the cumulative prospect theory. The main result of this work is a fuzzy version of the prospect theory, which allows handling fuzzy values of the decisions (prospects). The paper presents the theoretical foundations of the proposed version, an illustrative practical example, and conclusions based on the results obtained.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document