Buyers' Pricing Behavior for Risky Alternatives: Encoding Processes and Preference Reversals

Numerous studies have examined individuals' minimum selling prices or certainty equivalents for lotteries as measures of preference, but few have examined maximum buying prices. Because every transaction involves a buyer as well as a seller, buyers' pricing behavior is of interest in its own right. Two prospect theory based descriptive models of maximum buying prices-the integration and segregation models-are developed from different assumptions about cognitive encoding processes. The models were tested experimentally using an incentive-compatible cash payoff scheme in which maximum buying prices for bets and choices between bets were elicited from subjects. Surprisingly, observed maximum buying prices were far below expected values even for bets with probabilities of winning near 1.0. This suggests buyers are strongly influenced by loss aversion and that the conventional assumption that the buying price for a risky alternative is a reduction in the alternative's payoffs fails to describe behavior. Instead, it appears subjects predominately employed a segregation encoding process in which the buying price was encoded separately from the bet's payoffs and treated as a sure loss. However, an additional result was not explained adequately by either encoding model: Buying prices were less risk averse than choices for $3 expected value bets-creating preference reversals of the standard kind Lichtenstein and Slovic 1971-but more risk averse for $100 expected value bets-creating reverse preference reversals Casey 1991. Implications for the scale compatibility principle Tversky et al. 1988 are discussed. Two theoretical approaches are outlined which offer promise in the development of a unified model of price judgments and choice preferences under risk.

[1]  C. Harvey Prescriptive models of psychological effects on risk attitudes , 1989 .

[2]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[4]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations , 1989 .

[5]  G. W. Fischer,et al.  Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. , 1993 .

[6]  B. D. Bunday,et al.  Basic optimisation methods , 1985, Mathematical Gazette.

[7]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[8]  M. Degroot,et al.  Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. , 1964, Behavioral science.

[9]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk , 1948, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  David W Harless,et al.  More laboratory evidence on the disparity between willingness to pay and compensation demanded , 1989 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[12]  Robert D. Willig,et al.  Consumer's Surplus Without Apology , 1976 .

[13]  M. Bazerman,et al.  Cognition and Rationality in Negotiation , 1991 .

[14]  W. Hays Statistics for the social sciences , 1973 .

[15]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  Decision Making: SOURCES OF BIAS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES FOR UTILITY FUNCTIONS , 1982 .

[16]  P. Slovic,et al.  Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective , 1983 .

[17]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[18]  J. Baron,et al.  Status-quo and omission biases , 1992 .

[19]  P. Schoemaker The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations , 1982 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contingent weighting in judgment and choice , 1988 .

[21]  P. Slovic,et al.  Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. , 1971 .

[22]  John W. Payne,et al.  Contingent decision behavior. , 1982 .

[23]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Cognitive processes in preference reversals , 1989 .

[24]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Rational versus Plausible Accounting Equivalences in Preference Judgments , 1990 .

[25]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem , 1990, Journal of Political Economy.

[26]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. 1968. , 1969, M.D.Computing.

[27]  R. Thaler Toward a positive theory of consumer choice , 1980 .

[28]  John W. Payne,et al.  Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior , 1980 .

[29]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects , 1975 .

[30]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[31]  B. Mellers,et al.  Preferences, prices, and ratings in risky decision making. , 1992 .

[32]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Measuring values: A conceptual framework for interpreting transactions with special reference to contingent valuation of visibility , 1988 .

[33]  Lola L. Lopes,et al.  [Advances in Experimental Social Psychology] Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 20 Volume 20 || Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk , 1987 .

[34]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  The rationality of prices and volume in experimental markets , 1992 .

[35]  M. Machina Choice under Uncertainty: Problems Solved and Unsolved , 1987 .

[36]  G. Hazen,et al.  SSB and weighted linear utility as expected utility with suspicion , 1991 .

[37]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent? , 1985 .

[38]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Causes of Preference Reversal , 1990 .

[39]  R. Hogarth,et al.  BEHAVIORAL DECISION THEORY: PROCESSES OF JUDGMENT AND CHOICE , 1981 .

[40]  P. Farquhar State of the Art—Utility Assessment Methods , 1984 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model , 1991 .

[42]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Venture Theory: A Model of Decision Weights , 1990 .

[43]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The Adaptive Decision-Maker : Effort and Accuracy in Choice , 2022 .

[44]  Jeff T. Casey Reversal of the preference reversal phenomenon , 1991 .

[45]  C. Plott,et al.  Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon , 1979 .

[46]  R. Thaler,et al.  Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: the effects of prior outcomes on risky choice , 1990 .

[47]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Information displays and preference reversals , 1988 .

[48]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .