Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory
Theory and Decision 68 (1-2):193-211 (2010)
Abstract
Are risk preferences stable over time? To address this question we elicit risk preferences from the same pool of subjects at two different moments in time. To interpret the results, we use a Fechner stochastic choice model in which the revealed preference of individuals is governed by some underlying preference, together with a random error. We take cumulative prospect theory as the underlying preference model (Kahneman and Tversky, Econometrica 47:263–292, 1979; Tversky and Kahneman, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:297–323, 1992). We observe that the aggregate pattern of preferences is very similar in both sessions, and it matches the results reported in the literature. Most subjects are risk averse for gains, and risk seeking for losses. However, the subjects that jointly agree with the reflection effect of prospect theory are around 50%. The percentage of individuals that change their responses across sessions is quite high, 63%. Estimating the stochastic choice model we find that 72% of the subjects have an underlying preference which agrees with the reflection effect of prospect theory. The remaining 28% are mainly classified as risk averse for both gains and losses. The results reinforce the empirical validity of the reflection effect. Deviations from the reflection effect can be attributed to noise, as well as to the existence of a fraction of risk averse subjectsDOI
10.1007/s11238-009-9153-3
My notes
Similar books and articles
Measuring the time stability of prospect theory preferences.Stefan Zeisberger, Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer - 2012 - Theory and Decision 72 (3):359-386.
Recursive expected utility and the separation of attitudes towards risk and ambiguity: an experimental study. [REVIEW]Sujoy Chakravarty & Jaideep Roy - 2008 - Theory and Decision 66 (3):199-228.
Willingness to Pay for Risk Reduction and Risk Aversion without the Expected Utility Assumption.Eric Langlais - 2005 - Theory and Decision 59 (1):43-50.
Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers.Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture - 2012 - Theory and Decision 73 (2):203-221.
Individual vs. couple behavior: an experimental investigation of risk preferences. [REVIEW]Mohammed Abdellaoui, Olivier L’Haridon & Corina Paraschiv - 2013 - Theory and Decision 75 (2):175-191.
Common ratio using delay.Manel Baucells & Franz H. Heukamp - 2010 - Theory and Decision 68 (1-2):149-158.
Moment characterization of higher-order risk preferences.Sebastian Ebert - 2013 - Theory and Decision 74 (2):267-284.
Applications of prospect theory to political science.Jack S. Levy - 2003 - Synthese 135 (2):215 - 241.
Prospect relativity: how choice options influence decision under risk.Neil Stewart, Nick Chater, Henry P. Stott & Stian Reimers - 2003 - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 (1):23.
Dynamic Decision Making when Risk Perception Depends on Past Experience.Michèle Cohen, Johanna Etner & Meglena Jeleva - 2008 - Theory and Decision 64 (2-3):173-192.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-12-01
Downloads
104 (#121,024)
6 months
1 (#450,425)
2013-12-01
Downloads
104 (#121,024)
6 months
1 (#450,425)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Measuring the time stability of prospect theory preferences.Stefan Zeisberger, Dennis Vrecko & Thomas Langer - 2012 - Theory and Decision 72 (3):359-386.
References found in this work
The Construction of Preference.Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic (eds.) - 2006 - Cambridge University Press.
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.D. Kahneman & A. Tversky - 1979 - Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society:263--291.
Stochastic Choice and Consistency in Decision Making Under Risk: An Experimental Study. Sopher & Narramore - 2000 - Theory and Decision 48 (4):323-349.