IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v52y2006i4p529-541.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk

Author

Listed:
  • David Faro

    (Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Yuval Rottenstreich

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1 Towerview Drive, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0120)

Abstract

Making effective decisions under risk often requires making accurate predictions of other people's decisions under risk. We experimentally assess the accuracy of people's predictions of others' risky choices. In four studies, we find evidence of systematic inaccuracy: predictions of others' choices are too regressive. That is, people predict that others' choices will be closer to risk neutrality than those choices actually are. Where people are risk seeking, they predict that others will be risk seeking but substantially less so; likewise, where people are risk averse, they predict that others will be risk averse but substantially less so. Put differently, people predict that others' choices will reveal a more muted form of prospect theory's fourfold pattern of risk preferences than actually prevails. Two psychological concepts, the notion of risk-as-feelings and of an empathy gap, help account for regressive mispredictions. We explore several debiasing techniques suggested by these notions and also find that self-reported ratings of empathy moderate the magnitude of regressive mispredictions.

Suggested Citation

  • David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2006. "Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 529-541, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:4:p:529-541
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0490
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0490?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. Wu, George & Heath, Chip & Knez, Marc, 2003. "A timidity error in evaluations: Evaluators judge others to be too risk averse," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 50-62, January.
    2. Klein, Gary & Wolf, Steve & Militello, Laura & Zsambok, Caroline, 1995. "Characteristics of Skilled Option Generation in Chess," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 63-69, April.
    3. Windschitl, Paul D. & Young, Michael E., 2001. "The Influence of Alternative Outcomes on Gut-Level Perceptions of Certainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 109-134, May.
    4. Rettinger, David A. & Hastie, Reid, 2001. "Content Effects on Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 336-359, July.
    5. Payne, John W & Bettman, James R & Schkade, David A, 1999. "Measuring Constructed Preferences: Towards a Building Code," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 243-270, December.
    6. Loewenstein, George & Adler, Daniel, 1995. "A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(431), pages 929-937, July.
    7. 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..
    8. Weber, Elke U. & Ames, Daniel R. & Blais, Ann-Renée, 2005. "‘How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways’: A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 87-118, March.
    9. John C. Hershey & Jonathan Baron, 1987. "Clinical Reasoning and Cognitive Processes," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 7(4), pages 203-211, December.
    10. Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 272-292, March.
    11. Siegrist, Michael & Cvetkovich, George & Gutscher, Heinz, 2002. "Risk Preference Predictions and Gender Stereotypes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 91-102, January.
    12. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    13. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    14. Carmon, Ziv & Ariely, Dan, 2000. "Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(3), pages 360-370, December.
    15. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    16. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    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. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 2002. "Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 1162-1175, November.
    2. Burson, Katherine A. & Faro, David & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2010. "ABCs of principal-agent interactions: Accurate predictions, biased processes, and contrasts between working and delegating," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 1-12, September.
    3. Faralla, Valeria & Novarese, Marco & Ardizzone, Antonella, 2017. "Framing Effects in Intertemporal Choice: A Nudge Experiment," MPRA Paper 82086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    6. Rottenstreich, Yuval & Kivetz, Ran, 2006. "On decision making without likelihood judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 74-88, September.
    7. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Maria Abellan-Perpiñan & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades & Ildefonso Mendez-Martinez, 2007. "Resolving Inconsistencies in Utility Measurement Under Risk: Tests of Generalizations of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 469-482, March.
    8. Valerie Seror, 2008. "Fitting observed and theoretical choices – women's choices about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 557-577, May.
    9. Astrid Hopfensitz & Frans Winden, 2008. "Dynamic Choice, Independence and Emotions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 249-300, March.
    10. Wells, Rachael E. & Iyengar, Sheena S., 2005. "Positive illusions of preference consistency: When remaining eluded by one's preferences yields greater subjective well-being and decision outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 66-87, September.
    11. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:5:p:988-1014 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. André Lapidus, 2000. "La rationalité du choix passionnel : En quête de l'héritage de David Hume," Post-Print hal-00343939, HAL.
    13. Rhodes, Charles, 2012. "A Dynamic Model of Failure to Maximize Utility in the Chronic Consumer Choice to Consume Foods High in Added Sugars," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124693, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Melissa L. Finucane & Joan L. Holup, 2006. "Risk as Value: Combining Affect and Analysis in Risk Judgments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-164, March.
    15. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    16. George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(4), pages 1209-1248.
    17. Marshall, Roger & Huan, Tzung-Cheng (T.C.) & Xu, Yingzi & Nam, Inwoo, 2011. "Extending prospect theory cross-culturally by examining switching behavior in consumer and business-to-business contexts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 871-878, August.
    18. Kluger, Avraham N. & Stephan, Elena & Ganzach, Yoav & Hershkovitz, Meirav, 2004. "The effect of regulatory focus on the shape of probability-weighting function: Evidence from a cross-modality matching method," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 20-39, September.
    19. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
    20. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    21. Wang, Mei & Fischbeck, Paul, 2004. "Evaluating lotteries, risks, and risk mitigation programs : a comparison of China and the United States," Papers 04-13, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    22. Hans-Martin von Gaudecker & Arthur van Soest & Erik Wengstrom, 2011. "Heterogeneity in Risky Choice Behavior in a Broad Population," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 664-694, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk; uncertainty; affect;
    All these keywords.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:52:y:2006:i:4:p:529-541. 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.