IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v15y2018i1p27-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Compound and Reduced Specification on Valuation of Projects with Multiple Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Saurabh Bansal

    (The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania 16802)

  • Yaroslav Rosokha

    (Krannert School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907)

Abstract

Several firms make business decisions based on risk specifications or estimates provided by domain experts. But research on whether the format of risk specifications systematically affects decision making in multidimensional environments is scarce. Using laboratory experiments, we show that subjective valuations of projects with multiple risks are highly sensitive to the format of risk specification. In the experiments, participants considered a project that had two risks and would be considered a success when favorable outcomes occurred on both risks. Participants were provided with the probabilities of success for each risk in two different specifications. In the reduced specification, each probability was directly specified. In the compound specification, each probability was specified as a two-point distribution. The data showed that under the reduced specification, decision-makers’ perceived value of the project was higher than its true value, because of conjunctive probability bias in which decision makers overestimated the conjunctive probabilities. Under compound specification, however, judgmental valuations were subject to two biases that acted in opposite directions and, as a net outcome, managerial valuations were closer to risk-neutral valuations.

Suggested Citation

  • Saurabh Bansal & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Impact of Compound and Reduced Specification on Valuation of Projects with Multiple Risks," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 27-46, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:27-46
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2017.0358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2017.0358
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2017.0358?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. Segal, Uzi, 1990. "Two-Stage Lotteries without the Reduction Axiom," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(2), pages 349-377, March.
    2. Keller, L Robin, 1985. "Testing of the 'reduction of compound alternatives' principle," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 349-358.
    3. 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.
    4. Saurabh Bansal & Genaro J. Gutierrez & John R. Keiser, 2016. "Quantifying Uncertainties and Risks Using Managerial Judgments in a Dynamic New Product Development Environment," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 25(12), pages 2010-2013, December.
    5. Elabed, Ghada & Carter, Michael R., 2015. "Compound-risk aversion, ambiguity and the willingness to pay for microinsurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 150-166.
    6. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    7. Saurabh Bansal & Sandra Transchel, 2014. "Managing Supply Risk for Vertically Differentiated Co-Products," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(9), pages 1577-1598, September.
    8. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    9. Yoram Halevy, 2007. "Ellsberg Revisited: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 503-536, March.
    10. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2015. "Reduction of compound lotteries with objective probabilities: Theory and evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-55.
    11. Jason R. W. Merrick, 2008. "Getting the Right Mix of Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 43-52, March.
    12. Gregory Besharov, 2004. "Second-Best Considerations in Correcting Cognitive Biases," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 71(1), pages 12-20, July.
    13. Daniel Kahneman & Dan Lovallo, 1993. "Timid Choices and Bold Forecasts: A Cognitive Perspective on Risk Taking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 17-31, January.
    14. Julie Ward & Bin Zhang & Shailendra Jain & Chris Fry & Thomas Olavson & Holger Mishal & Jason Amaral & Dirk Beyer & Ann Brecht & Brian Cargille & Russ Chadinha & Kathy Chou & Gavin DeNyse & Qi Feng & , 2010. "HP Transforms Product Portfolio Management with Operations Research," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 40(1), pages 17-32, February.
    15. Jason R. W. Merrick & Rene Van Dorp, 2006. "Speaking the Truth in Maritime Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 223-237, February.
    16. Saurabh Bansal & Genaro J. Gutierrez & John R. Keiser, 2017. "Using Experts’ Noisy Quantile Judgments to Quantify Risks: Theory and Application to Agribusiness," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(5), pages 1115-1130, October.
    17. Jeffrey S. Stonebraker, 2002. "How Bayer Makes Decisions to Develop New Drugs," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 32(6), pages 77-90, December.
    18. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    19. S. David Wu & Karl G. Kempf & Mehmet O. Atan & Berrin Aytac & Shamin A. Shirodkar & Asima Mishra, 2010. "Improving New-Product Forecasting at Intel Corporation," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 40(5), pages 385-396, October.
    20. Yates, J. Frank & Carlson, Bruce W., 1986. "Conjunction errors: Evidence for multiple judgment procedures, including "signed summation"," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 230-253, April.
    21. Robert T. Clemen & Canan Ulu, 2008. "Interior Additivity and Subjective Probability Assessment of Continuous Variables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 835-851, April.
    22. Ghada Elabed & Marc F. Bellemare & Michael R. Carter & Catherine Guirkinger, 2013. "Managing basis risk with multiscale index insurance," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(4-5), pages 419-431, July.
    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. Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Benscheidt, Kevin, 2019. "Advanced Counter-Biasing," IZA Discussion Papers 12253, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Benscheidt, Kevin & Carpenter, Jeffrey, 2020. "Advanced counter-biasing," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 1-18.
    3. Vicki M. Bier & Simon French, 2020. "From the Editors: Decision Analysis Focus and Trends," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8, March.

    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. Kops, Christopher & Pasichnichenko, Illia, 2023. "Testing negative value of information and ambiguity aversion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    3. Dillenberger, David & Segal, Uzi, 2017. "Skewed noise," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 344-364.
    4. Strobl, Renate, 2022. "Background risk, insurance and investment behaviour: Experimental evidence from Kenya," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 34-68.
    5. Berger, Loic & Bosetti, Valentina, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 236239, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    6. Loic Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2016. "Ellsberg Re-revisited: An Experiment Disentangling Model Uncertainty and Risk Aversion," Working Papers 2016.37, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Prokosheva, Sasha, 2016. "Comparing decisions under compound risk and ambiguity: The importance of cognitive skills," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 94-105.
    8. James R. Bland & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2021. "Learning under uncertainty with multiple priors: experimental investigation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 157-176, April.
    9. Brian Hill, 2009. "Confidence and ambiguity," Working Papers hal-00489870, HAL.
    10. Ronald Klingebiel & Feibai Zhu, 2023. "Ambiguity aversion and the degree of ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 299-324, December.
    11. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    12. Li, Jiangyan & Fairley, Kim & Fenneman, Achiel, 2024. "Does it matter how we produce ambiguity in experiments?," MPRA Paper 122336, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Yoram Halevy & Emre Ozdenoren, 2022. "Uncertainty and compound lotteries: calibration," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(2), pages 373-395, September.
    14. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Econographics," NBER Working Papers 24931, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. 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.
    16. Sasha Prokosheva, 2014. "Comparing Decisions under Compound Risk and Ambiguity: The Importance of Cognitive Skills," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp525, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    17. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-04071242 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Calford, Evan M., 2020. "Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 720-734.
    19. Ilke Aydogan & Lo?c Berger & Valentina Bosetti & Ning Liu, 2018. "Three Layers of Uncertainty: an Experiment," Working Papers 2018.24, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    20. repec:hal:journl:hal-03031751 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.
    22. Glenn W. Harrison & Jia Min Ng, 2019. "Behavioral insurance and economic theory: A literature review," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 22(2), pages 133-182, July.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:15:y:2018:i:1:p:27-46. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.