IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jrinsu/v89y2022i1p35-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting

Author

Listed:
  • Maren Baars
  • Michael Goedde‐Menke

Abstract

Current decision‐making models assume that an individual's attitude towards risk is unique. Hence, a decision maker's processing of probabilities and the resulting degree of probability weighting should not vary within the domain of risk. This paper provides evidence that challenges this assumption. We conduct two experiments involving different gambles, that is, risky games where objective probabilities are known, no further information‐based advantages exist, and outcomes are independent of knowledge. Even though all probabilities are explicitly provided, we find that individuals exhibit more pronounced inverse‐S‐shaped probability weighting if they perceive their level of expertise regarding a gamble to be lower. This result suggests that individuals are subject to ignorance illusion in decisions under risk, constituting expertise‐dependent risk attitudes. We document that ignorance illusion stems from the wrongly assigned importance of perceived expertise in the decision‐making process and that it occurs in both the gain and the loss domain.

Suggested Citation

  • Maren Baars & Michael Goedde‐Menke, 2022. "Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 35-62, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:89:y:2022:i:1:p:35-62
    DOI: 10.1111/jori.12356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jori.12356
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jori.12356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Peter Klibanoff & Lætitia Placido, 2015. "Experiments on Compound Risk in Relation to Simple Risk and to Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1306-1322, June.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2016. "Evaluating The Expected Welfare Gain From Insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 91-120, January.
    3. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser, 2015. "Parametric preference functionals under risk in the gain domain: A Bayesian analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 161-187, April.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Aurelien Baillon & Laetitia Placido & Peter P. Wakker, 2011. "The Rich Domain of Uncertainty: Source Functions and Their Experimental Implementation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 695-723, April.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Craig R. Fox & Amos Tversky, 1995. "Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(3), pages 585-603.
    8. Bruhin, Adrian & Santos-Pinto, Luís & Staubli, David, 2018. "How do beliefs about skill affect risky decisions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 350-371.
    9. Ulrich Schmidt, 2016. "Insurance Demand Under Prospect Theory: A Graphical Analysis," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 77-89, January.
    10. Fellner, Gerlinde & Guth, Werner & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2004. "Illusion of expertise in portfolio decisions: an experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 355-376, November.
    11. Frijns, Bart & Koellen, Esther & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2008. "On the determinants of portfolio choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 373-386, May.
    12. Robert F. Nau, 2006. "Uncertainty Aversion with Second-Order Utilities and Probabilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 136-145, January.
    13. Chew, Soo Hong & Sagi, Jacob S., 2008. "Small worlds: Modeling attitudes toward sources of uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 1-24, March.
    14. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    15. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    16. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    17. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    18. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    20. Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Vomhof, Markus & Weßling, Jens, 2017. "Health insurance choice and risk preferences under cumulative prospect theory – an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 374-397.
    21. Olivier Armantier & Nicolas Treich, 2016. "The Rich Domain of Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1954-1969, July.
    22. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’haridon & Dennie van Dolder, 2016. "Measuring Loss Aversion under Ambiguity: A Method to Make Prospect Theory Completely Observable," Post-Print halshs-01242616, HAL.
    23. Ergin, Haluk & Gul, Faruk, 2009. "A theory of subjective compound lotteries," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 899-929, May.
    24. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    25. Adrian Bruhin & Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2010. "Risk and Rationality: Uncovering Heterogeneity in Probability Distortion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1375-1412, July.
    26. Johnson, Eric J & Hershey, John & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Kunreuther, Howard, 1993. "Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 35-51, August.
    27. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    28. Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2016. "Hypothetical Surveys And Experimental Studies Of Insurance Demand: A Review," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 83(1), pages 217-255, January.
    29. Katarzyna Werner, 2016. "Insurance Demand and Heterogeneity in Risk Perception," Journal of Insurance Issues, Western Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 39(1), pages 69-91.
    30. Michael Kilka & Martin Weber, 2001. "What Determines the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function Under Uncertainty?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(12), pages 1712-1726, December.
    31. Heath, Chip & Tversky, Amos, 1991. "Preference and Belief: Ambiguity and Competence in Choice under Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-28, January.
    32. Helga Fehr-Duda & Manuele Gennaro & Renate Schubert, 2006. "Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 283-313, May.
    33. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2009. "Betting on own knowledge: Experimental test of overconfidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 39-49, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Rongxin & Lepori, Gabriele M. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Sung, Ming-Chien, 2022. "Explaining cryptocurrency returns: A prospect theory perspective," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    3. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier l’Haridon & Chen Li, 2018. "The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2181-2198, May.
    5. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Umut Keskin & Olivier L'Haridon & Author-Name: Chen Li, 2013. "Learning under ambiguity: An experiment using initial public offerings on a stock market," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 201331, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    6. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2015. "Hurwicz expected utility and subjective sources," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 465-488.
    7. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2023. "Three Layers of Uncertainty," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(5), pages 2209-2236.
    8. Zhihua Li & Julia Müller & Peter P. Wakker & Tong V. Wang, 2018. "The Rich Domain of Ambiguity Explored," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3227-3240, July.
    9. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    10. Kemel, Emmanuel & Paraschiv, Corina, 2013. "Prospect Theory for joint time and money consequences in risk and ambiguity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-95.
    11. Lucy F. Ackert & Richard Deaves & Jennifer Miele & Quang Nguyen, 2020. "Are Time Preference and Risk Preference Associated with Cognitive Intelligence and Emotional Intelligence?," Journal of Behavioral Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 136-156, April.
    12. Veronica Cappelli & Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Stefania Minardi, 2021. "Sources of Uncertainty and Subjective Prices," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 872-912.
    13. Anthony Newell, 2020. "Is your heart weighing down your prospects? Interoception, risk literacy and prospect theory," QuBE Working Papers 058, QUT Business School.
    14. Han Bleichrodt & Simon Grant & Jingni Yang, 2023. "Testing Hurwicz Expected Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(4), pages 1393-1416, July.
    15. Ilke Aydogan & Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2018. "Three layers of uncertainty: an experiment," Working Papers 623, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    16. Campos-Vazquez, Raymundo M. & Cuilty, Emilio, 2014. "The role of emotions on risk aversion: A Prospect Theory experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-9.
    17. repec:hal:journl:hal-03031751 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Stephen G. Dimmock & Roy Kouwenberg & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Ambiguity Attitudes in a Large Representative Sample," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1363-1380, May.
    19. Glenn W. Harrison & J. Todd Swarthout, 2016. "Cumulative Prospect Theory in the Laboratory: A Reconsideration," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2016-04, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    20. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    21. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Clara Villegas-Palacio & Peter Martinsson & Milagros Mejía, 2016. "Risk Taking For Oneself And Others: A Structural Model Approach," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 879-894, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jrinsu:v:89:y:2022:i:1:p:35-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ariaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.