Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility

This paper explores inconsistencies that occur in utility measurement under risk when expected utility theory is assumed and the contribution that prospect theory and some other generalizations of expected utility can make to the resolution of these inconsistencies. We used five methods to measure utilities under risk and found clear violations of expected utility. Of the theories studied, prospect theory was the most consistent with our data. The main improvement of prospect theory over expected utility was in comparisons between a riskless and a risky prospect (riskless-risk methods). We observed no improvement over expected utility in comparisons between two risky prospects (risk-risk methods). An explanation for the latter observation may be that there was less distortion in probability weighting in the interval [0.10, 0.20] than has commonly been observed.

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

[2]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences , 1990 .

[3]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect , 1999 .

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

[5]  James E. Smith,et al.  Decision analysis in Management Science , 2004 .

[6]  J. Pinto-Prades,et al.  Measuring the health of populations: the veil of ignorance approach. , 2005, Health economics.

[7]  John Quiggin,et al.  Risk Perception And The Analysis Of Risk Attitudes , 1981 .

[8]  Robert Sugden,et al.  Reference-dependent subjective expected utility , 2003, J. Econ. Theory.

[9]  M. Abdellaoui.  Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions , 2000 .

[10]  Colin Camerer,et al.  The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework , 1999 .

[11]  Jonathan Shalev,et al.  Loss aversion equilibrium , 2000, Int. J. Game Theory.

[12]  J. Miyamoto,et al.  A multiplicative model of the utility of survival duration and health quality. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Maureen,et al.  Methodological Issues of Patient Utility Measurement Experience From Two Clinical Trials , 1995, Medical care.

[14]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function , 1996 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[16]  Ulrich Schmidt,et al.  A Context-Dependent Model of the Gambling Effect , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Peter P. Wakker,et al.  Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[18]  P. Wakker,et al.  The Utility of Gambling Reconsidered , 2004 .

[19]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk , 2001, Psychological science.

[20]  J. Miyamoto,et al.  Deriving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from constant proportional time tradeoff and risk posture conditions , 2003 .

[21]  P. Wakker.  Using Descriptive Findings of Prospect Theory to Improve Prescriptive Applications of Expected Utility , 1999 .

[22]  S. Dikmen,et al.  A new and more robust test of QALYs. , 2004, Journal of health economics.

[23]  Joseph S. Pliskin,et al.  Utility Functions for Life Years and Health Status , 1980, Oper. Res..

[24]  David W Harless,et al.  The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories , 1994 .

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

[26]  Mark R. McCord,et al.  Lottery Equivalents: Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment , 1986 .

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

[28]  G Loomes,et al.  Visual Analog Scales, Standard Gambles, and Relative Risk Aversion , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  John Conlisk,et al.  Three Variants on the Allais Example , 1989 .

[30]  A. Tversky,et al.  Weighing Risk and Uncertainty , 1995 .

[31]  T. Bezembinder,et al.  The Discrepancy between Risky and Riskless Utilities , 1999, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  F. D. de Charro,et al.  Sensitivity and perspective in the valuation of health status: whose values count? , 2000, Health economics.

[33]  Richard Gonzalez,et al.  On the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[35]  G. C. Morrison.  The Endowment Effect and Expected Utility , 2000 .

[36]  Rob Ranyard,et al.  Utility theories: Measurement and applications: Ward Edwards (Ed.), Kluwer, Boston, MA, 1992 , 1995 .

[37]  J. Miyamoto,et al.  Parameter Estimates for a QALY Utility Model , 1985, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[38]  Colin Camerer.  Recent Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility Theory , 1992 .

[39]  John W. Payne,et al.  Note-Further Tests of Aspiration Level Effects in Risky Choice Behavior , 1981 .

[40]  John Quiggin,et al.  Time and risk , 1995 .

[41]  L. Lenert,et al.  Incorporating Risk Attitude into Markov-process Decision Models: , 1997, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

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

[43]  A. B. Markman,et al.  Choice output and choice processing: An analogy to similarity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[44]  J. L. Pinto,et al.  The Validity of Qalys Under Non‐expected Utility* , 2005 .

[45]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[46]  Faruk Gul.  A Theory of Disappointment Aversion , 1991 .

[47]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[48]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  The Measurement of Patients' Values in Medicine , 1982, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[49]  Philippe Delquié,et al.  Bi-Matching: A New Preference Assessment Method to Reduce Compatibility Effects , 1997 .

[50]  H. Bleichrodt.  Probability Weighting in Choice under Risk: An Empirical Test , 2001 .

[51]  Philippe Delquié,et al.  Inconsistent trade-offs between attributes: new evidence in preference assessment biases , 1993 .

[52]  A. Oliver.  The internal consistency of the standard gamble: tests after adjusting for prospect theory. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[53]  John W. Payne,et al.  Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code , 1999 .

[54]  C. Starmer.  Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk , 2000 .

[55]  J. L. Pinto,et al.  A Parameter-Free Elicitation of the Probability Weighting Function in Medical Decision Analysis , 2000 .