IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v70y2024i11p7524-7536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probabilistic Outcomes Are Valued Less in Expectation, Even Conditional on Their Realization

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriele Paolacci

    (Marketing, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, 3062 PA Rotterdam, Netherlands)

  • Quentin André

    (Marketing, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309)

Abstract

Most theories of decision making under risk assume that payoffs and probabilities are separable. In the context of a lottery, the subjective value of a prospective outcome (the payoff) is assumed to be independent of the likelihood that the outcome will occur (the probability). In violation of this assumption, we present eight experiments showing that people anticipate less utility from uncertain outcomes than from certain outcomes, even conditional on their realization. The devaluation of uncertain outcomes is observed across different measures of utility (willingness to spend money or time; choice between different options), different populations (student and online samples), and different manipulations of uncertainty. We show that this result does not simply reflect a misunderstanding of the instructions or people’s aversion toward a “weird” transaction with unexplained features. We highlight the implications of this phenomenon for empirical investigations of risk preferences and conclude with a discussion of the psychological mechanisms that might drive the devaluation of probabilistic outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriele Paolacci & Quentin André, 2024. "Probabilistic Outcomes Are Valued Less in Expectation, Even Conditional on Their Realization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(11), pages 7524-7536, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:70:y:2024:i:11:p:7524-7536
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.02284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02284
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02284?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
    ---><---

    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:70:y:2024:i:11:p:7524-7536. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.