IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v107y2023ics2214804322001215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence

Author

Listed:
  • Wakker, Peter P.

Abstract

Bernheim and Sprenger (2020, Econometrica; SB) claimed to experimentally falsify rank dependence in prospect theory. This paper criticizes SB's results and novelty claims. Their experiments only captured well-known heuristics and not genuine preferences. Many falsifications of rank dependence have been made before, and SB's equalizing reductions have also been used before. SB thought to identify probability weighting and utility where they are unidentifiable, invalidating all SB's related claims. SB used an incorrect formula of original prospect theory. Their suggested alternative of rank-independent probability weighting with dependence on the number of outcomes (their “complexity aversion;” a misnomer) has long been discarded.

Suggested Citation

  • Wakker, Peter P., 2023. "A criticism of Bernheim & Sprenger's (2020) tests of rank dependence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:107:y:2023:i:c:s2214804322001215
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2022.101950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804322001215
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2022.101950?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    2. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    3. Steven Humphrey, 2001. "Non‐transitive Choice: Event‐Splitting Effects or Framing Effects?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 77-96, February.
    4. James Stodder, 1997. "Complexity Aversion: Simplification in the Herrnstein and Allais Behaviors," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-15, Winter.
    5. 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.
    6. Wu, George, 1994. "An Empirical Test of Ordinal Independence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 39-60, July.
    7. Martin Weber & Franz Eisenführ & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1988. "The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 431-445, April.
    8. Helga Fehr-Duda & Thomas Epper, 2012. "Probability and Risk: Foundations and Economic Implications of Probability-Dependent Risk Preferences," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 567-593, July.
    9. L'Haridon, Olivier, 2009. "Behavior in the loss domain: An experiment using the probability trade-off consistency condition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 540-551, August.
    10. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    11. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    12. Haim Levy, 2008. "First Degree Stochastic Dominance Violations: Decision Weights and Bounded Rationality," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(528), pages 759-774, April.
    13. Humphrey, Steven J, 2001. "Are Event-Splitting Effects Actually Boundary Effects?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 79-93, January.
    14. Humphrey, Steven J., 2000. "The common consequence effect: testing a unified explanation of recent mixed evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 239-262, March.
    15. Olivier Armantier & Nicolas Treich, 2016. "The Rich Domain of Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1954-1969, July.
    16. Camerer, Colin F & Ho, Teck-Hua, 1994. "Violations of the Betweenness Axiom and Nonlinearity in Probability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 167-196, March.
    17. Huck, Steffen & Weizsacker, Georg, 1999. "Risk, complexity, and deviations from expected-value maximization: Results of a lottery choice experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 699-715, December.
    18. Birnbaum, Michael H. & McIntosh, William Ross, 1996. "Violations of Branch Independence in Choices between Gambles," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 91-110, July.
    19. Mark J. Machina, 2009. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 385-392, March.
    20. Neilson, William S., 1992. "Some mixed results on boundary effects," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 275-278, July.
    21. Enrico Diecidue & Peter Wakker & Marcel Zeelenberg, 2007. "Eliciting decision weights by adapting de Finetti’s betting-odds method to prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 179-199, June.
    22. 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..
    23. Humphrey, Steven J, 1995. "Regret Aversion or Event-Splitting Effects? More Evidence under Risk and Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 263-274, December.
    24. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2007. "Tests of branch splitting and branch-splitting independence in Allais paradoxes with positive and mixed consequences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 154-173, March.
    25. Edwards, Kimberley D., 1996. "Prospect theory: A literature review," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 19-38.
    26. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    27. Graham Loomes & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2003. "Do Anomalies Disappear in Repeated Markets?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 113(486), pages 153-166, March.
    28. Bateman, Ian J, et al, 1997. "Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 322-332, March.
    29. Dean, Mark & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2017. "Allais, Ellsberg, and preferences for hedging," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    30. Serge Blondel, 2002. "Testing Theories of Choice Under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 251-265, May.
    31. Doron Sonsino & Uri Benzion & Galit Mador, 2002. "The Complexity Effects on Choice with Uncertainty — Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 936-965, October.
    32. Loehman, Edna, 1998. "Testing risk aversion and nonexpected utility theories," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 285-302, January.
    33. Wakker, Peter & Erev, Ido & Weber, Elke U, 1994. "Comonotonic Independence: The Critical Test between Classical and Rank-Dependent Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 195-230, December.
    34. Weber, Elke U & Kirsner, Britt, 1997. "Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 41-61, January.
    35. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1993. "Testing for Juxtaposition and Event-Splitting Effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 235-254, June.
    36. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    37. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2005. "Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1346-1358, September.
    38. Bernasconi, Michele, 1994. "Nonlinear Preferences and Two-Stage Lotteries: Theories and Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(422), pages 54-70, January.
    39. Jaromír Kovářík & Dan Levin & Tao Wang, 2016. "Ellsberg paradox: Ambiguity and complexity aversions compared," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 47-64, February.
    40. Blondel, Serge, 2002. "Testing Theories of Choice under Risk: Estimation of Individual Functionals," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 251-265, May.
    41. Peter Moffatt & Stefania Sitzia & Daniel Zizzo, 2015. "Heterogeneity in preferences towards complexity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 147-170, October.
    42. Olivier l'Haridon & Ferdinand M. Vieider, 2019. "All over the map: A worldwide comparison of risk preferences," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(1), pages 185-215, January.
    43. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2008. "Prospect theory for continuous distributions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 83-102, February.
    44. Doron Sonsino & Marvin Mandelbaum, 2001. "On Preference for Flexibility and Complexity Aversion: Experimental Evidence 1," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 197-216, December.
    45. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    46. Ryan O. Murphy & Robert H. W. ten Brincke, 2018. "Hierarchical Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation for Cumulative Prospect Theory: Improving the Reliability of Individual Risk Parameter Estimates," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 308-328, January.
    47. George Wu & Jiao Zhang & Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2005. "Testing Prospect Theories Using Probability Tradeoff Consistency," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 107-131, January.
    48. Drew Fudenberg & Indira Puri, 2022. "Simplicity and Probability Weighting in Choice under Risk," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 112, pages 421-425, May.
    49. Peter P. Wakker, 2023. "The correct formula of 1979 prospect theory for multiple outcomes," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 183-187, February.
    50. Kai Ruggeri & Sonia Alí & Mari Louise Berge & Giulia Bertoldo & Ludvig D. Bjørndal & Anna Cortijos-Bernabeu & Clair Davison & Emir Demić & Celia Esteban-Serna & Maja Friedemann & Shannon P. Gibson & H, 2020. "Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 622-633, June.
    51. Fennema, Hein & Wakker, Peter, 1996. "A Test of Rank-Dependent Utility in the Context of Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 19-35, July.
    52. Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1993. "Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(421), pages 1397-1417, November.
    53. Chris Starmer, 1999. "Cycling with Rules of Thumb: An Experimental Test for a new form of Non-Transitive Behaviour," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 139-157, April.
    54. Steven J. Humphrey & Arjan Verschoor, 2004. "Decision-making Under Risk among Small Farmers in East Uganda," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 13(1), pages 44-101, March.
    55. Steven Humphrey, 2006. "Does Learning Diminish Violations of Independence, Coalescing and Monotonicity?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 93-128, September.
    56. Iyengar, Sheena S. & Kamenica, Emir, 2010. "Choice proliferation, simplicity seeking, and asset allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 530-539, August.
    57. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    58. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    59. B. Douglas Bernheim & Rebecca Royer & Charles Sprenger, 2022. "Robustness of Rank Independence in Risky Choice," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 112, pages 415-420, May.
    60. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt & Miriam D. Schneider, 2017. "Testing independence conditions in the presence of errors and splitting effects," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 61-85, February.
    2. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Sprenger, Charles, 2023. "On the empirical validity of cumulative prospect theory: A response to the Wakker commentaries," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    4. Andreas Glöckner & Baiba Renerte & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 471-501, November.
    5. B. Douglas Bernheim & Charles Sprenger, 2020. "On the Empirical Validity of Cumulative Prospect Theory: Experimental Evidence of Rank‐Independent Probability Weighting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(4), pages 1363-1409, July.
    6. George Wu & Jiao Zhang & Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2005. "Testing Prospect Theories Using Probability Tradeoff Consistency," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 107-131, January.
    7. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán González, 2023. "On The Appeal Of Complexity," Working Papers 2312, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    8. Schmidt, Ulrich & Birnbaum, Michael, 2014. "The Impact of Experience on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100463, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Michael H. Birnbaum & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "The Impact of Learning by Thought on Violations of Independence and Coalescing," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 144-152.
    10. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    11. Marc Rieger & Mei Wang, 2008. "Prospect theory for continuous distributions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 83-102, February.
    12. Francesco Cesarone & Massimiliano Corradini & Lorenzo Lampariello & Jessica Riccioni, 2023. "A new behavioral model for portfolio selection using the Half-Full/Half-Empty approach," Papers 2312.10749, arXiv.org.
    13. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Patton, Jamie N. & Lott, Melissa K., 1999. "Evidence against Rank-Dependent Utility Theories: Tests of Cumulative Independence, Interval Independence, Stochastic Dominance, and Transitivity, , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 44-83, January.
    14. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    15. Olivier L’Haridon & Lætitia Placido, 2010. "Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 375-393, September.
    16. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    17. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    18. Michael H. Birnbaum, 2005. "Three New Tests of Independence That Differentiate Models of Risky Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1346-1358, September.
    19. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    20. Peter Brooks & Simon Peters & Horst Zank, 2014. "Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 153-182, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Prospect theory; Rank dependence; Complexity aversion;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:eee:soceco:v:107:y:2023:i:c:s2214804322001215. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.