IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v89y2020i4d10.1007_s11238-020-09761-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Violations of coalescing in parametric utility measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Glöckner

    (University of Cologne
    Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Baiba Renerte

    (University of Konstanz
    Thurgau Institute of Economics)

  • Ulrich Schmidt

    (Kiel Institute for the World Economy
    University of Kiel
    University of Johannesburg)

Abstract

The majority consensus in the empirical literature is that probability weighting functions are typically inverse-S shaped, that is, people tend to overweight small and underweight large probabilities. A separate stream of literature has reported event-splitting effects (also called violations of coalescing) and shown that they can explain violations of expected utility. This leads to the questions whether (1) the observed shape of weighting functions is a mere consequence of the coalesced presentation and, more generally, whether (2) preference elicitation should rely on presenting lotteries in a canonical split form instead of the commonly used coalesced form. We analyze data from a binary choice experiment where all lottery pairs are presented in both split and coalesced forms. Our results show that the presentation in a split form leads to a better fit of expected utility theory and to probability weighting functions that are closer to linear. We thus provide some evidence that the extent of probability weighting is not an ingrained feature, but rather a result of processing difficulties.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:89:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09761-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-020-09761-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-020-09761-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-020-09761-5?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. Mark McCord & Richard de Neufville, 1986. ""Lottery Equivalents": Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 56-60, January.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    6. 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..
    7. Humphrey, Steven J., 1996. "Do anchoring effects underlie event-splitting effects? An experimental test," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 303-308, June.
    8. George Wu & Richard Gonzalez, 1996. "Curvature of the Probability Weighting Function," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1676-1690, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Bruno Jullien & Bernard Salanie, 2000. "Estimating Preferences under Risk: The Case of Racetrack Bettors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(3), pages 503-530, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    13. 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.
    14. John D. Hey & Chris Orme, 2018. "Investigating Generalizations Of Expected Utility Theory Using Experimental Data," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Experiments in Economics Decision Making and Markets, chapter 3, pages 63-98, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    15. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    16. 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.
    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. Steven Humphrey, 2006. "Does Learning Diminish Violations of Independence, Coalescing and Monotonicity?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 93-128, September.
    19. Steven Humphrey, 1999. "Probability Learning, Event-Splitting Effects and the Economic Theory of Choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-78, February.
    20. Birnbaum, Michael H & Navarrete, Juan B, 1998. "Testing Descriptive Utility Theories: Violations of Stochastic Dominance and Cumulative Independence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 49-78, October.
    21. Henry Stott, 2006. "Cumulative prospect theory's functional menagerie," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 101-130, March.
    22. Conlisk, John, 1989. "Three Variants on the Allais Example," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 392-407, June.
    23. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. Luce, R Duncan, 1998. "Coalescing, Event Commutativity, and Theories of Utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 87-114, April.
    28. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2006. "Evidence against prospect theories in gambles with positive, negative, and mixed consequences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 737-761, December.
    29. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    30. 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.
    31. Sneddon, Robert & Luce, R. Duncan, 2001. "Empirical Comparisons of Bilinear and Nonbilinear Utility Theories," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 71-94, January.
    32. John Payne, 2005. "It is Whether You Win or Lose: The Importance of the Overall Probabilities of Winning or Losing in Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 5-19, January.
    33. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Chavez, Alfredo, 1997. "Tests of Theories of Decision Making: Violations of Branch Independence and Distribution Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 161-194, August.
    34. Mohammed Abdellaoui, 2000. "Parameter-Free Elicitation of Utility and Probability Weighting Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(11), pages 1497-1512, November.
    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. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider & Nathaniel T. Wilcox, 2019. "Minimal Frames and Transparent Frames for Risk, Time, and Uncertainty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(9), pages 4318-4335, September.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2010. "Allais paradoxes can be reversed by presenting choices in canonical split form," Kiel Working Papers 1615, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Michael H. Birnbaum & Kathleen Johnson & Jay-Lee Longbottom, 2008. "Tests of Cumulative Prospect Theory with graphical displays of probability," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 528-546, October.
    16. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2010. "Behavioral econometrics for psychologists," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 553-576, August.
    17. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    18. 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.
    19. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    20. 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).
    21. 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.

    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:kap:theord:v:89:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s11238-020-09761-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.