Translation of Gambles and Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior

Two recent models of risky decision making developed by Fishburn Fishbijrn, P. C. 1977. Mean-risk analysis with risk associated with below-target returns. Amer. Econ. Rev.67 116-126. and by Kahneman and Tversky Kahneman, D., A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica47 262-291. have emphasized the importance of a target return or a reference point in determining preferences and choices among gambles. Target returns and reference points represent variations on the concept of an aspiration level, an old idea in theories of decision making. Additional evidence on the need to incorporate such a concept in the analysis of risky choice behavior is presented in this paper. In three experiments, the relationship of pairs of gambles to an assumed reference point was varied by adding or subtracting a constant amount from all outcomes. The results demonstrate that such translations of outcomes can result in the reversal of choice within pairs of gambles. The effect of such translations on choice depended on whether the size of the translation was sufficient to insure that one gamble in a pair had outcome values either all above or all below the reference point, while the other gamble had outcome values both above and below the reference point. A model of the effects of a reference point on risky choice behavior is presented and the results are also discussed in terms of the Fishburn and Kahneman-Tversky models, as well as other theories of risky decision making.

[1]  Johann Pfanzag.  A general theory of measurement applications to utility , 1959 .

[2]  Uday S. Karmarkar,et al.  Subjectively weighted utility: A descriptive extension of the expected utility model , 1978 .

[3]  James C. T. Mao,et al.  SURVEY OF CAPITAL BUDGETING: THEORY AND PRACTICE , 1970 .

[4]  Josef Hadar,et al.  Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects , 1969 .

[5]  J. Payne,et al.  Exploring predecisional behavior: An alternative approach to decision research , 1978 .

[6]  Charles A. Holloway.  Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Models and Choices , 1979 .

[7]  R. Ranyard,et al.  Elimination by aspects as a decision rule for risky choice , 1976 .

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

[9]  Roy L. Crum,et al.  Risk Preference: Empirical Evidence and Its Implications for Capital Budgeting , 1981 .

[10]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Prospect theory's reflection hypothesis: A critical examination , 1980 .

[11]  C. Coombs,et al.  A theorem on single-peaked preference functions in one dimension , 1977 .

[12]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[13]  P. Fishburn,et al.  TWO‐PIECE VON NEUMANN‐MORGENSTERN UTILITY FUNCTIONS* , 1979 .

[14]  David W. Conrath,et al.  From Statistical Decision Theory to Practice: Some Problems with the Transition , 1973 .

[15]  John W. Payne,et al.  Preferences among gambles with equal underlying distributions , 1971 .

[16]  P. Fishburn.  Mean-Risk Analysis with Risk Associated with Below-Target Returns , 1977 .

[17]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Behavioral Models of Risk Taking in Business Decisions: A Survey and Evaluation , 1977 .

[18]  C. Williams.  Attitudes toward Speculative Risks as an Indicator of Attitudes toward Pure Risks , 1966 .

[19]  S. Siegel,et al.  Level of aspiration and decision making. , 1957, Psychological review.

[20]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[21]  George S. Avrunin,et al.  Single-Peaked Functions and the Theory of Preference. , 1977 .

[22]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations , 1978 .

[23]  John W. Payne,et al.  Relation of perceived risk to preferences among gambles. , 1975 .