Noisy Parameters in Risky Choice

We examine the effect of variability in model parameters on the predictions of expected utility theory and cumulative prospect theory, two of the most influential choice models in decision making research. We find that zero-mean and symmetrically distributed noise in the underlying parameters of these models can systematically distort choice probabilities, leading to false conclusions. Likewise, differences in choice proportions across decision makers might be due to differences in the amount of noise affecting underlying parameters rather than to differences in actual parameter values. Our results suggest that care and caution are needed when trying to infer the underlying preferences of decision makers, or the effects of psychological, biological, economic, and demographic variables on these preferences.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[2]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Modelling the Stochastic Component of Behaviour in Experiments: Some Issues for the Interpretation of Data , 2005 .

[3]  Sudeep Bhatia.  Sequential sampling and paradoxes of risky choice , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[4]  R. Hertwig.  Decisions from Experience , 2015 .

[5]  Shanefrederick,et al.  Time Discounting and Time Preference : A Critical Review , 2022 .

[6]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories , 1995 .

[7]  Pavlo R. Blavatskyy,et al.  Models of Stochastic Choice and Decision Theories: Why Both are Important for Analyzing Decisions , 2008 .

[8]  Mauricio R. Delgado,et al.  Acute Stress Modulates Risk Taking in Financial Decision Making , 2009, Psychological science.

[9]  N. Chater,et al.  Exaggerated risk: prospect theory and probability weighting in risky choice. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Cross-National Differences in Risk Preference and Lay Predictions , 1999 .

[11]  Michael H Birnbaum,et al.  Testing mixture models of transitive preference: comment on Regenwetter, Dana, and Davis-Stober (2011). , 2011, Psychological review.

[12]  Ryan K. Jessup,et al.  Feedback Produces Divergence From Prospect Theory in Descriptive Choice , 2008, Psychological science.

[13]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[14]  H. Zur,et al.  The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior , 1981 .

[15]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects: New Data without Order Effects , 2005 .

[16]  Camelia M. Kuhnen,et al.  The Neural Basis of Financial Risk Taking , 2005, Neuron.

[17]  G. Charness,et al.  Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking , 2012 .

[18]  Jacob Marschak,et al.  Stochastic models of choice behavior , 2007 .

[19]  George Wu,et al.  The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making: Keren/The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making , 2015 .

[20]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. , 2015, Annual review of psychology.

[21]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice , 2006 .

[22]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decision field theory: a dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. , 1993, Psychological review.

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .