Foresight, risk attitude, and utility maximization in naturalistic sequential high-stakes decision making

Abstract We explore three research questions related to risky sequential choice: (1) Does adherence to expected utility theory increase or decrease over sequential choices? (2) Does risk attitude vary systematically over sequential choices? and (3) To what extent are sequential choices influenced by future possible choices? We selected the game show, Deal or No Deal (DOND), as a context to study sequential decision making under risk with high stakes. We obtained data from complete game episodes involving 1421 players in three versions of the DOND (UK, US primetime, and US syndicated), aired between October 2005 and May 2010. In all three versions of the game, players make a binary choice between accepting a sure-thing offer that ends the game (“deal”) or continuing to play the game under risk (“no deal”). Separate stochastic choice models are constructed for each round of each of the three versions of the game to assess both risk attitude and adherence to expected utility theory. Players were found to be quite risk averse across all rounds and tended to be less risk averse and less rational over rounds in all three versions of the game. Results also suggest that players tend to consider the expected value for different sets of remaining cases one round ahead, but do not consider different possible sure-thing offers one round ahead.

[1]  R. Thaler,et al.  Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Payoff Game Show , 2008 .

[2]  Morten I. Lau,et al.  Risk Aversion in Game Shows , 2008 .

[3]  Jungmin Lee,et al.  Risk attitudes in large stake gambles: evidence from a game show , 2006 .

[4]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  Francesco Trebbi,et al.  RISK AVERSION AND EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY: AN EXPERIMENT WITH LARGE AND SMALL STAKES , 2012 .

[6]  Egil Matsen,et al.  Dominated choices in a simple game with large stakes , 2010 .

[7]  Jean-Claude Falmagne,et al.  A Stochastic Model for the Evolution of Preferences , 2019 .

[8]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[9]  Ganna Pogrebna,et al.  Endowment effects? “Even” with half a million on the table! , 2010 .

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

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

[12]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Heuristic decision making. , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[13]  Yianis Sarafidis,et al.  Decision Making Under Risk in Deal or No Deal , 2006 .

[14]  M. Yaari.  The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk , 1987 .

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

[16]  Robert H. Gertner.  Game Shows and Economic Behavior: Risk-Taking on “Card Sharks” , 1993 .

[17]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Random relations, random utilities, and random functions , 2001 .

[18]  Regenwetter.  Random Utility Representations of Finite m-ary Relations , 1996, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[19]  J. Quiggin.  A theory of anticipated utility , 1982 .

[20]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[21]  Ganna Pogrebna.  Naive Advice When Half-a-Million is at Stake , 2008 .

[22]  Timothy J. Pleskac,et al.  Theoretical tools for understanding and aiding dynamic decision making , 2009 .

[23]  H. Stott.  Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie , 2006 .

[24]  R. Faff,et al.  Does Risk Aversion Vary with Decision-Frame? An Empirical Test Using Recent Game Show Data , 2009 .

[25]  Martijn J. van den Assem,et al.  Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[26]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas , 1973 .

[27]  Dorsaf Ben Aissia.  Developments in non-expected utility theories: an empirical study of risk aversion , 2016 .

[28]  Ganna Pogrebna,et al.  Risk Aversion when Gains are Likely and Unlikely: Evidence from a Natural Experiment with Large Stakes , 2008 .

[29]  C. Davis-Stober,et al.  Behavioral variability of choices versus structural inconsistency of preferences. , 2012, Psychological review.

[30]  Annalisa Conte,et al.  Risk Attitude in Real Decision Problems , 2008 .

[31]  Ken Binmore,et al.  A Backward Induction Experiment , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[32]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[33]  Clintin P Davis-Stober,et al.  QTest: Quantitative Testing of Theories of Binary Choice. , 2014, Decisions.

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

[35]  Andrew Metrick,et al.  A Natural Experiment in "Jeopardy!" , 1995 .

[36]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

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

[38]  Peter C. Schotman,et al.  Measuring Risk Attitudes in a Natural Experiment: Data from the Television Game Show Lingo. , 2001 .

[39]  P. Slovic,et al.  BOREDOM-INDUCED CHANGES IN PREFERENCES AMONG BETS. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[40]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

[41]  H. Simon.  Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning , 1991 .

[42]  J. Hey,et al.  INVESTIGATING GENERALIZATIONS OF EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA , 1994, Experiments in Economics.

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

[44]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

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

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

[47]  R. Faff,et al.  Deal or No Deal, that is the Question: The Impact of Increasing Stakes and Framing Effects on Decision-Making Under Risk , 2009 .