Money, Kisses, and Electric Shocks: On the Affective Psychology of Risk

Prospect theory's S-shaped weighting function is often said to reflect the psychophysics of chance. We propose an affective rather than psychophysical deconstruction of the weighting function resting on two assumptions. First, preferences depend on the affective reactions associated with potential outcomes of a risky choice. Second, even with monetary values controlled, some outcomes are relatively affect-rich and others relatively affect-poor. Although the psychophysical and affective approaches are complementary, the affective approach has one novel implication: Weighting functions will be more S-shaped for lotteries involving affect-rich than affect-poor outcomes. That is, people will be more sensitive to departures from impossibility and certainty but less sensitive to intermediate probability variations for affect-rich outcomes. We corroborated this prediction by observing probability-outcome interactions: An affect-poor prize was preferred over an affect-rich prize under certainty, but the direction of preference reversed under low probability. We suggest that the assumption of probability-outcome independence, adopted by both expected-utility and prospect theory, may hold across outcomes of different monetary values, but not different affective values.

[1]  George Wu,et al.  Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty , 1999 .

[2]  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 .

[3]  Martin Weber,et al.  What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty? , 1998, Manag. Sci..

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

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

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

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

[8]  Gordon Miller,et al.  Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions , 1990 .

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

[10]  P. Slovic,et al.  Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Communication: The Effects of Using Actual Cases, Providing Instruction, and Employing Probability Versus Frequency Formats , 2000, Law and human behavior.

[11]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Violations of the betweenness axiom and nonlinearity in probability , 1994 .

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

[13]  D. E. Bell,et al.  Decision making: Descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. , 1990 .

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

[15]  D. Prelec The Probability Weighting Function , 1998 .

[16]  J. Elster,et al.  Utility from memory and anticipation. , 1992 .

[17]  D. E. Bell,et al.  Decision Making: DESCRIPTIVE, NORMATIVE, AND PRESCRIPTIVE INTERACTIONS IN DECISION MAKING , 1988 .

[18]  G. Loewenstein Anticipation and the Valuation of Delayed Consumption , 1987 .

[19]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[20]  I. Ritov,et al.  Decision Affect Theory: Emotional Reactions to the Outcomes of Risky Options , 1997 .

[21]  Y. Ganzach,et al.  Judging Risk and Return of Financial Assets. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[22]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  R. Dhar,et al.  Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods , 2000 .

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